News Special interests have NO limits in elections.

[Nebula815]

I believe corporations can break laws, certainly. And corporations that are privately-owned by a few people can still be big, for example Koch Industries.

That said, I do not believe any corporation can "buy" any Senate seat. McCain-Feingold, if anything, led to increases in the money in politics because corporations and special interests find ways to circumvent the laws, such as via political action committees as mentioned.

It also secures the ability of the rich and powerful to get and to remain in power. That's why it limited individuals to $2500 in campaign contributions. It makes it tougher for a non-rich person running for office to obtain funds.

It was another example of government intervention meant to accomplish one thing and instead creating the opposite.

If anything, McCain-Feingold made is easier to "buy" a Senate seat and striking it down now makes it harder.

As for foreign corporations messing in campaigns, well foreign corporations already are permitted to lobby in Washington. So do foreign governments. They both lobby Washington all the time and have been doing so for years. So I think this is a moot point. Some of the foreign corps even have front groups that act as "research organizations" to criticize their American competitors.

I'm not sure about lobbying, but on the campaigns issue, the only way to stop that is to outright ban all private funds to politicians and instead have all campaigns financed with public money, but that makes it very favorable to incumbents.

 

[turbo]

I'm not sure about lobbying, but on the campaigns issue, the only way to stop that is to outright ban all private funds to politicians and instead have all campaigns financed with public money, but that makes it very favorable to incumbents.

I would prefer public financing, too, to place all candidates on an equal footing. And ban all campaign money from the outside, and all "honoraria". I cannot afford to pay Sen Susan Collins (R-Maine) $20K to come speak to me and my wife at breakfast. So who is she going to listen to when policy issues come up? Me and my wife, or some special interest group that can line her pockets if she makes a short speech? The corruption in DC is disgusting, and the latest SC decision just opens the flood-gates to more and more corruption. If bribing public officials is protected "free speech", then the US is headed farther into oligarchy than Russia. Not good.

Banning all outside money would not necessarily favor incumbents, nor should it be necessary for the candidates to buy huge ad bundles. I would prefer that they debate one another, and that the debates be broadcast by TV networks as a condition for holding their licenses.

 

[Pinu7]

1. American Corporations are legal persons. (not debating that anymore, it is fact.)
2. Constitutional rights apply to legal persons.
3. Therefore, corporations are protected by the constitution.

SCOTUS made the logical decision. Political advertisement is a protected right and there is no reason to take that away.

So 49% foreign influence in our elections is acceptable? You think that would be "fair", but how does it really work?

Sure. Corporations represent 51% of the shareholder's money. If most of that money is from Americans, then the other 49% are drowned out.

Corporations break laws..

How corporations can break laws, yet are not protected by constitutional rights is utterly preposterous.

 

[Al68]

Corporations break laws. Period.

LOL. I never disagreed with that statement, but that statement attributes personhood to the corporations. You are attributing personhood to corporations.

But the fact remains, regardless of semantical issues, that the law in question did in fact restrict the actions of people. Period.

You can't use a "corporations aren't people" argument to justify restricting the actions of people. Is this not obvious?

 

[turbo]

1. American Corporations are legal persons. (not debating that anymore, it is fact.)

It is not a fact. They are legally-recognized entities in the states in which they are incorporated. Do they have birth certificates, voter-registrations, and passports? No. They are created to let a bunch of people do what single people would find difficult or expensive to do individually, AND to limit the liability of the investors. Investors can lose their investment, but they are not liable for wrong-doing on the part of the corporation.

2. Constitutional rights apply to legal persons.

Not until such fictitious persons are granted such rights. The Supreme Court has engaged in legislation from the bench with this decision. Instead of interpreting law in light of the Constitution, they have taken the law into their own hands and that will disrupt and corrupt our elections until Congress takes action.

3. Therefore, corporations are protected by the constitution.

Since your premise #1 and #2 are badly flawed, your conclusion is wrong.

SCOTUS made the logical decision. Political advertisement is a protected right and there is no reason to take that away.

Yes there is. When special-interests can erode or negate the rights of the electorate, they need to be controlled. The court has relinquished all such control.

How corporations can break laws, yet are not protected by constitutional rights is utterly preposterous.

Corporations can be protected by the rule of law, but it is ridiculous to equate them with citizens or accord them the rights accorded to citizens. Can corporations bear arms? If not, why not? Do you not see a disconnect in your logic?

 

[Al68]

Corporations can be protected by the rule of law, but it is ridiculous to equate them with citizens or accord them the rights accorded to citizens. Can corporations bear arms?

Would you favor a law that made it illegal for a "corporation" to bear arms on the basis that corporations aren't people? Referring to a corporation as a "bearer of arms" is using the word to refer to people, obviously.

Your statements equate corporations to citizens. You are the one referring to illegal actions of people as "corporations breaking laws".

Again, you just can't use the "corporations aren't people" argument to justify restricting the actions of people.

Are you just pretending to not understand this?

 

[Nebula815]

Yes there is. When special-interests can erode or negate the rights of the electorate, they need to be controlled. The court has relinquished all such control.

How is allowing political free-speech eroding or negating the rights of the electorate?

This SCOTUS decision was a victory for free speech. If it is determined to truly be a bad thing that is permitted, then the method is to change the Constitution via formal amendment.

On a corporation, don't know if this adds to the discussion, but here is Wikipedia's definition:

A corporation is an institution that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members.[1] There are many different forms of corporations, most of which are used to conduct business.

Corporations exist as a product of corporate law, and their rules balance the interests of the management who operate the corporation; creditors who loan it goods, services or money; shareholders who invest their capital; the employees who contribute their labor; and the clients they serve. People work together in corporations to produce value and generate income. In modern times, corporations have become an increasingly dominant part of economic life. People rely on corporations for employment, pensions, goods, services, economic growth and cultural development.

An important feature of corporation is limited liability. If a corporation fails, shareholders normally only stand to lose their investment, and employees will lose their jobs, but neither will be further liable for debts that remain owing to the corporation's creditors.

Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[2] and they may be responsible for human rights violations.[3] Just as they are "born" into existence through its members obtaining a certificate of incorporation, they can "die" when they lose money into insolvency. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offences, such as fraud and manslaughter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

 

[edward]

"Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Abraham Lincoln

The law treats a corporation as a legal "person" that has standing to sue and be sued, distinct from its stockholders. The legal independence of a corporation prevents shareholders from being personally liable for corporate debts. It also allows stockholders to sue the corporation through a derivative suit and makes ownership in the company (shares) easily transferable. The legal "person" status of corporations gives the business perpetual life; deaths of officials or stockholders do not alter the corporation's structure.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/corporations

There were specific reasons that corporations were given the legal person status.

The ability to throw money in support of political candidates in the guise of free speech should not be one of them.

This opens a Pandora's box for the law of unintended consequences. Foreign entities who own American corporations can now be directly involved in American politics as these "unatural persons."

 

[Al68]

How is allowing political free-speech eroding or negating the rights of the electorate?

If you expect a rational answer to this, you'll be waiting in vain. People who advocate the use of force to prevent a political message from being sent and received will rationalize such force any way they can.

As you can see, some even suggest that the fact that the message might influence an election is the justification for using force to prevent it, instead of the very reason for protecting it. Apparently using government force (against political speech) to influence elections is just fine with them. They either don't realize or don't care how corrupt and anti-democratic that inherently is.

 

[Nebula815]

The ability to throw money in support of political candidates in the guise of free speech should not be one of them.

This opens a Pandora's box for the law of unintended consequences. Foreign entities who own American corporations can now be directly involved in American politics as these "unatural persons."

Keep in mind that it is not as if there was a lack of corporate money in politics and this opens up the floodgate to far more. The money was there already, it just finds its way around through loopholes.

 

[Evo]

Corporations break laws. Period. The difficulty with prosecuting corporations usually involves trying to find out who ordered the law-breaking, so that some person(s) might be punished. Think of Enron, for a glaring example. The notion that a corporation cannot break a law is woo-woo.

Fining a corporation is collective punishment. Finding out who ordered the law-breaking and punishing them is a whole other kettle of fish, though it's probably a whole lot more effective as a deterrent for future crooks and thugs wearing Italian suits and sitting on boards.

The point of incorporating is that there is no personal liability.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Your statements equate corporations to citizens. You are the one referring to illegal actions of people as "corporations breaking laws".

Again, you just can't use the "corporations aren't people" argument to justify restricting the actions of people.

Corporations can break laws. They are legally recognized as individual entities for certain legal purposes primarily regarding financial and business issues. The fact that they are recognized as legal entities means that is the corporation does something wrong the corporate personality, a fictitious person, is the one to take the fall. While the individuals who work for or are invested in the corporation may lose money if the corporation loses money they otherwise have only a limited liability for any wrong doing on the part of the corporate entity. So your person/not person/representative of persons dichotomy does not make any sense. The corporation is the "person" who is held legally responsible. Theoretically then the people who make up a corporation can break the law with regard to election and campaign laws and few if any of them will be penalized, instead the corporation will take the hit. And of course you can not jail a corporation, you can only fine it.

No one's rights are being restricted. All of those persons who are financially represented by the corporation still have their all of their rights. The restriction is (or rather was) placed upon the fictitious personhood of the corporation.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

1. American Corporations are legal persons. (not debating that anymore, it is fact.)
2. Constitutional rights apply to legal persons.
3. Therefore, corporations are protected by the constitution.

SCOTUS made the logical decision. Political advertisement is a protected right and there is no reason to take that away.


Sure. Corporations represent 51% of the shareholder's money. If most of that money is from Americans, then the other 49% are drowned out.



How corporations can break laws, yet are not protected by constitutional rights is utterly preposterous.

Check the definitions and distinctions between "Legal Persons" and "Natural Persons".
The point of a corporation being granted a legal personhood was never intended to grant them all of the same rights as any real person. The legal fiction was constructed for financial and business purposes. Running private political campaigns has nothing to do with said purpose.

 

[Al68]

Corporations can break laws. They are legally recognized as individual entities for certain legal purposes primarily regarding financial and business issues. The fact that they are recognized as legal entities means that is the corporation does something wrong the corporate personality, a fictitious person, is the one to take the fall. While the individuals who work for or are invested in the corporation may lose money if the corporation loses money they otherwise have only a limited liability for any wrong doing on the part of the corporate entity. So your person/not person/representative of persons dichotomy does not make any sense. The corporation is the "person" who is held legally responsible. Theoretically then the people who make up a corporation can break the law with regard to election and campaign laws and few if any of them will be penalized, instead the corporation will take the hit. And of course you can not jail a corporation, you can only fine it.

I think you misunderstood my post, I never said a corporation generally couldn't break laws. What I said was that a "corporation" couldn't break laws if the word was being used in a specific limited sense that excluded people and their actions. In the post I responded to, the word corporation was used in a way that precluded the notion of it being capable of breaking laws, and I was disagreeing with using the word corporation that way. My statement was intended to show why using the word corporation that way was problematic.

But as an aside, the limitation on liability has nothing to do with criminal wrongdoing, it just limits the civil liability of stockholders to the value of their stock. Every person is still potentially criminally liable for any crimes they commit.

And the fact that a corporation is recognized as a separate entity for other purposes has nothing to do with this issue. A corporation is no longer considered a separate entity for the purposes of political speech. At least not by the current Supreme Court.

No one's rights are being restricted. All of those persons who are financially represented by the corporation still have their all of their rights. The restriction is (or rather was) placed upon the fictitious personhood of the corporation.

I was referring to the restrictions on the actions of people in the recently overturned law. I'd call a 5 year prison sentence for political speech a significant violation of a person's rights. Despite this law's horrendously inaccurate depiction in the media, the actual enforcement provisions in the law refer to actual people. Prison terms and fines were implemented by this law against real people for their political speech.

The Supreme Court specifically ruled that "corporate identity" (considering a corporation to be an entity separate from the people it acts as an agent for) could not be used as a basis for suppressing political speech. Government can no longer imprison or fine people for political speech simply because of the "corporate nature" of their association. It's a good day for freedom of speech and democratic government.

 

[WhoWee]

So 49% foreign influence in our elections is acceptable? You think that would be "fair", but how does it really work?

Here's a MUCH bigger concern - the US Government now owns GM - how will that work?

 

[ThomasT]

What's wrong with buying politicians? This is how things have been done since the beginning. Perhaps eventually we'll be civilized enough to just admit it, and then formally sanction it. That way checks can be sent directly to voters and we can all stop complaining that politicians are corrupt and that they don't act in behalf of the interests of the people.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here's a MUCH bigger concern - the US Government now owns GM - how will that work?

So your answer is to change the subject? Is limited to virtually unlimited foreign influence in US elections a problem or not?

Also, you picked the 49% number from thin air. What is the real number?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What's wrong with buying politicians? This is how things have been done since the beginning. Perhaps eventually we'll be civilized enough to just admit it, and then formally sanction it. That way checks can be sent directly to voters and we can all stop complaining that politicians are corrupt and that they don't act in behalf of the interests of the people.

Then why even bother with elections? Why not just appoint the person who gets the most money?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Check the definitions and distinctions between "Legal Persons" and "Natural Persons".
The point of a corporation being granted a legal personhood was never intended to grant them all of the same rights as any real person. The legal fiction was constructed for financial and business purposes. Running private political campaigns has nothing to do with said purpose.

Thank you.

I don't understand why those on the right so often seem to defend policies and interpretation of law that are in direct opposition to our national sovereignty or security. I really have to wonder whose side some folks are on.

 

[turbo]

Not only is this neo-con activism on the court a blow to our national sovereignty - it is a slap against all the states that have laws limiting campaign contributions by unions and corporations.

Expect to see the feedback from this idiocy rolling across the country. It will happen. For all the conservatives' lip service to state's rights, their fealty is quite apparent when corporate profits and influence are in the balance.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Not only is this neo-con activism on the court a blow to our national sovereignty - it is a slap against all the states that have laws limiting campaign contributions by unions and corporations.

Expect to see the feedback from this idiocy rolling across the country. It will happen. For all the conservatives' lip service to state's rights, their fealty is quite apparent when corporate profits and influence are in the balance.

As I understand it, this decision overturns a century's worth of laws.

I can understand the court's hands being tied IF a corporation is viewed as a natural citizen, but the premise is clearly the problem. What has to change is the accepted definition of a citizen.

When were corporations first defined to be a natural person or citizen?

 

[turbo]

As I understand it, this decision overturns a century's worth of laws.

I can understand the court's hands being tied IF a corporation is viewed as a natural citizen, but the premise is clearly the problem. What has to change is the accepted definition of a citizen.

When were corporations first defined to be a natural person or citizen?

Corporations are not natural citizens, nor are labor unions or other special-interest groups. SCOTUS has de-facto granted such status to special-interest groups with this decision, and that is going to open the door for all kinds of abuses on our electoral system. The implications are far-reaching, and have not been explored very thoroughly yet.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Corporations are not natural citizens, nor are labor unions or other special-interest groups. SCOTUS has de-facto granted such status to special-interest groups with this decision, and that is going to open the door for all kinds of abuses on our electoral system. The implications are far-reaching, and have not been explored very thoroughly yet.

In that case, we simply need Congress to define that a corporation is not a natural person entitled to Constitutional rights and protections.

If a corporation is a natural person, then it should be able to vote. I could even start many corporations and vote many times.

I guess this is what you get when Republicans nominate SC justices.

 

[turbo]

In that case, we simply need Congress to define that a corporation is not a natural person entitled to Constitution protections.

Corporations are legal entities that can be held responsible for misdeeds, crimes, racketeering, etc, but their rights extend to the collective and do not include rights granted to natural citizens. Natural citizens (individuals) have the right to vote, the right to run for public office, the right to bear arms, etc. Certainly, these rights are inappropriate for corporations to be granted. SCOTUS has far over-stepped with this decision, overturning not only laws, but many, many years of precedent.

 

[ThomasT]

Then why even bother with elections? Why not just appoint the person who gets the most money?

What I envision would be politicians (or corporations or whoever) buying my vote directly via some sort of auction procedure. Of course to do this they would have to raise lots of money (so I'm all for any law which relaxes or abolishes any restrictions on political contributions by any person or entity) -- which would also make the usual political commentary about who's raising the most money more transparently relevant.

Just as long as I get a check from somebody.

But seriously, what can the average voter do? (Because we know that the solution will not come, spontaneously, from congress or elected officials.)

My real solution is for people to stop voting for Democrats or Republicans. That might shake things up a bit.

 

[Nebula815]

Thank you.

I don't understand why those on the right so often seem to defend policies and interpretation of law that are in direct opposition to our national sovereignty or security. I really have to wonder whose side some folks are on.

SCOTUS's job is the interpret the Constitution according to how it is written, not according to how anyone would like it to be written. If we don't like how it is written, then we can change it, which we have done throughout history.

I guess this is what you get when Republicans nominate SC justices.

You get people who will seek to interpret the Constitution according to how it is actually written instead of how they would prefer it be written. The Left (who run the Democrat party at the moment) seek to appoint people who will interpret the law according to how they would prefer it be written, which is dangerous.

And again, big money has always been in politics, it just got through loopholes before. This was a free-speech issue.

This ruling did not make it where corporations and unions can contribute directly to candidates. That ban was enacted in 1907 and is still in effect. Those thinking that a corporation could now say, "You support legislation we want and we'll give $5 million to your campaign," effectively buying a candidate, this is still illegal to prevent corruption.

The ruling allows corporations, unions, etc...to spend freely on political commercials and so forth. We allow media organizations, which are corporations, to hold opinions and they can sway elections. Allowing government to influence what can be said in political speech and what cannot can lead to censorship if taken too far.

 

[Al68]

I really have to wonder whose side some folks are on.

A law which provided for fines and prison sentences for real people for their political speech was overturned.

I don't have to wonder which side anyone is on. They usually make it pretty obvious.

 

[Al68]

In that case, we simply need Congress to define that a corporation is not a natural person entitled to Constitutional rights and protections.

Why? No one disagrees with that now. This issue had nothing to do with recognizing any "rights" of a corporation. That's just propaganda for people who don't know any better.

Corporations, labor unions, and special interest groups aren't real people, they are composed of real people.

 

[Al68]

Corporations are not natural citizens, nor are labor unions or other special-interest groups. SCOTUS has de-facto granted such status to special-interest groups with this decision

What are you talking about? Are you referring to a special interest group of robots instead of people? Or a hamster labor union?

In a group of people, it isn't the "group" that has rights, it's the "people" in the group. Do people lose their individual rights when they join a group?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

A law which provided for fines and prison sentences for real people for their political speech was overturned.

I don't have to wonder which side anyone is on. They usually make it pretty obvious.

Fines and prison sentence for people who who expressed their political speech through corporations. If they had only expressed their political speech themselves instead of using a fictional person as a proxy there would be no problem. For what reason do they feel the need to hide behind a corporation in order to express their political speech? Why should they have such a right? and what reasoning could you possibly muster for the legal or practical necessity of such fictional persons having free political speech?