News Special interests have NO limits in elections.

[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?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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?

They all still had their rights. They never were withheld any rights. It is the fictional person that was withheld rights. Why do they suddenly get another voice when they become a corporation? Are all of their individual voices not sufficient?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

The fact is that this overturns almost a century of laws and former scotus rulings. So according to THIS court, all related former rulings were in error.

I said that their hands might be tied, but I can see no logic that gives corporations rights as citizens. In fact it flies in the face of democratic principles.

There is no way this can stand, but according to one news corrspondent, there is little that even Congress can do short of a Constitutional ammendment.

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.

That is all true, however, elections are won in large part through advertsing. Fox news has shown just how effective a corporate sponsored disinformation service can be. Also note that when a candidate is losing, the most effective strategy is to flood the airwaves with commercials. This is why my wife and I were sending Obama as much money as we could afford. It is imperative to understand the level of influence in play here.

Also, don't try to tell me that the Republicans don't load the courts with justices that favor their positions. Consider abortion, for example. This is a question of the defintion of life, not a matter of conservative interpretations of law. They are just as bad as the Dems, but I fail to see whose side they are on at times; other than the side of big business that has no national loyalties.

Don't you have a problem with foreign countries having the ability to influence our elections directly?

Again, who gave corporations a political voice? Where is that right protected in the Constitution?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It seems the movement has already begun

First Draft of a Constitutional Amendment to Authorize the Regulation of Corporate Involvement in Politics

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-m-shane/first-draft-of-a-constitu_b_434275.html

 

[NeoDevin]

How long until you guys can just elect the corporations to office directly?

Wal-Mart for president, anyone?

 

[Nebula815]

I said that their hands might be tied, but I can see no logic that gives corporations rights as citizens. In fact it flies in the face of democratic principles.

It is not giving corporations the same rights as citizens. It is about free speech and ensuring the government cannot block speech it doesn't like. Government should not be permitted to block and limit political speech.

That is all true, however, elections are won in large part through advertsing. Fox news has shown just how effective a corporate sponsored disinformation service can be.

If it was not for Fox News, there are things about Barack Obama for example that the public never would have even become aware of. Fox News as a news corporation makes mistakes and has its flaws like every other news channel (MSNBC, ABC, CBS (which lied about George W. Bush's record in 2004), CNN aren't flawless either). And of course all these channels have their opinion shows as well, but I think you attribute too much influence to Fox alone.

Also note that when a candidate is losing, the most effective strategy is to flood the airwaves with commercials. This is why my wife and I were sending Obama as much money as we could afford. It is imperative to understand the level of influence in play here.

I actually think most people are fairly smart enough to see through the standard politics in these commercials. That was how Scott Brown campaigned in Massachusettes for example. He did not go negative on Martha Coakley's negative commercials, he just said she was doing politics as usual and her ads were saying a lot of nasty things about him that were not true.

Also, don't try to tell me that the Republicans don't load the courts with justices that favor their positions. Consider abortion, for example. This is a question of the defintion of life, not a matter of conservative interpretations of law. They are just as bad as the Dems, but I fail to see whose side they are on at times; other than the side of big business that has no national loyalties.

Republicans, as far as I have seen, seek to appoint justices that will interpret the law as it is written, not whether or not they have views agreeing with them or not. And even then, that can be a risk. The justices Eisenhower appointed were some of the most activist justices ever appointed to the Court.

As for Big Business, Big Business influences both parties these days. More money from Wall Street goes to the Democrat party as opposed to the Republicans right now.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/21/nation/na-wallstdems21

When there was a push a few years ago to increase the tax rate hedge-fund managers pay (they pay at the capital-gains tax rate, which is 15% currently), Democrats killed it.

Goldman-Sachs is all for cap-and-trade, because they stand to profit from it, regardless of whether or not it will hurt our economy. So is General Electric, which in its ownership of MSNBC pretty much turned that network into a propaganda network it seems.

Don't you have a problem with foreign countries having the ability to influence our elections directly?

Sure. But as said, this is a political free speech issue and the justices were adhering to the Constitution. They are not supposed to rule according to what they feel is morally right or wrong, just according to what the law says.

If it is determined that foreign corporations can influence elections through commercials too much, then one can change the Constitution perhaps, but even then we need to be careful I think.

Also, IMO, I am more concerned about the fact that foreign governments and corporations are allowed to lobby our government right now then I am about their ability to influence political commercials.

There is nothing to stop ordinary citizens from pooling their resources together in organizations to inform their fellow citizens about public issues, so big corporations are not solely at benefit here.

Again, who gave corporations a political voice? Where is that right protected in the Constitution?

The First Amendment does. The First Amendment protects free speech, and political speech is one of the most important aspects of this. The First Amendment ensures people, either as individuals or as a group (which includes corporations), have the right to speak out about the government, political candidates, and the like.

One big component of a free society is a free press. The government being able to censor organizations that speak to the public because those organizations are corporations and have lots of money means the government could go after the media.

The cable news networks, the radio companies, etc...all are corporations, all with large amounts of money, all which speak to the public. If the government could censor them, the First Amendment dies.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Its funny. A while ago I came up with an idea for a story where legislation created a loophole in campaign finance that allowed corporations to spend large sums of money on political campaigns. A corporation then decided to produce a reality television show "Joe Blow for President" wherein they used an American Idol style nomination process to decide on a candidate from a group of "Average Joes" who had never ran for office before and then followed the nominee on their fully corporate funded campaign trail for the office of president. The nominee then of course has a weekly aired television campaign with plenty of advertisement besides.

I thought it was perhaps too far fetched and believe I saw some advertisement for a movie with a similar premise at some point so I abandoned the idea but its starting to look like a good idea again.

 

[Nebula815]

It seems the movement has already begun


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-m-shane/first-draft-of-a-constitu_b_434275.html

Yeah that free speech issue is a real pain-in-the-rear.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yeah that free speech issue is a real pain-in-the-rear.

So your intent is to mispresent the views expressed here? Show me where corporations are granted constitutional protections and rights. Nothing in the Constitution says anything about corporations. This idea that a corporation is a person is absurd. The very reason one "incorporates", beyond the tax benefits, is to AVOID any potential personal liability. It is intended to legally separate the individuals in the corporation, from the company. A corporation is a legal entity, not a person.

 

[Nebula815]

So your intent is to mispresent the view expressed here?

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

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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

Why should fictitious persons be allowed free speech?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Its funny. A while ago I came up with an idea for a story where legislation created a loophole in campaign finance that allowed corporations to spend large sums of money on political campaigns. A corporation then decided to produce a reality television show "Joe Blow for President" wherein they used an American Idol style nomination process to decide on a candidate from a group of "Average Joes" who had never ran for office before and then followed the nominee on their fully corporate funded campaign trail for the office of president. The nominee then of course has a weekly aired television campaign with plenty of advertisement besides.

I thought it was perhaps too far fetched and believe I saw some advertisement for a movie with a similar premise at some point so I abandoned the idea but its starting to look like a good idea again.

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

 

[Nebula815]

Why should fictitious persons be allowed free speech?

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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.

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, let's 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]

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?

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

 

[Nebula815]

Not everything is entitiled to free speech. That right resides with the people, not the imaginary people.

Corporations are made up of people.

Why in the world would you defend this? This is not a free speech issue.

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.

Can't you see this opens the door for outrageous levels of foreign interference and manipulation in US elections?

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.

Are you a US citizen?

Yes.

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, let's get real, the corporation really represents the voices of an elite few, not the entire company.

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.

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...

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.

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 disinformation.

Who decides exactly what constitutes disinformation?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Corporations are made up of people.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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/SB100...5019112172931620.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/22/congress-shall-make-no-law/print/

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/22/john-lott-supreme-court-campaign-finance-mccain-feingold/

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?

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]

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?

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.

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?

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]

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...

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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".

Which is what drove the court case.

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.

It is tough for us real voters and election donators to compete with the fictional ones.

According to the logic of the SC, how then is a corporation denied the right to vote?

 

[Nebula815]

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.

Nothing sad about it. The last 60 to 30 days of an election are when people really start paying attention. Only political junkies follow elections in detail, but it is within the latter two months to one month to even weeks that people really start watching.

This is when political speech is most important.

 

[Al68]

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.

Why must I argue something I'm not claiming? I'm claiming exactly what SCOTUS ruled, that government can't suppress political speech even if we assume that the "speaker" has no political speech rights.

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.

That's only because the FEC attributed personhood to the corporation as a prerequisite to attributing the political speech to the corporation, since the offending act was physically committed by a real live human. It wasn't used by the court to attribute rights to the corporation.

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.

No, they didn't. The end result of government not suppressing political speech is the same, but not for that reason.

The SCOTUS decision made perfectly clear that under the assumption that the "speaker" has no rights, government still has no legitimate power to suppress the political speech.

I just reread the majority opinion, and nowhere does it claim or rely on any "rights" of a corporation. That's just a misrepresentation by those that disagree with the court.

I think many lose sight of the main reason for free political speech. It's not all about the personal rights of the speaker. It's not just the speaker that is affected by suppressing political speech.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It is tough for us real voters and election donators to compete with the fictional ones.

According to the logic of the SC, how then is a corporation denied the right to vote?

I am also wondering how many stockholders may wind up inadvertently assisting in the funding of support for a candidate they do not support or opposing one they do support. So if I invest in a corporation for financial reasons I ought keep abreast of the political inclinations of the board of directors on top of tracking their business savvy?

I was fairly certain that nonprofits lost their tax exempt status if they supported particular candidates, which seems logical enough to me. I hope that still holds at least.

Nothing sad about it. The last 60 to 30 days of an election are when people really start paying attention. Only political junkies follow elections in detail, but it is within the latter two months to one month to even weeks that people really start watching.

This is when political speech is most important.

And I am quite certain that individuals are capable of exercising their freedom of speech during the most important phases of elections individually or in groups other than corporations. I still have not seen any arguments as to why they should be allowed to use a corporation as a proxy for this.
I can think of only one and that would be that several poorer individuals, through a nonprofit, can hopefully compete financially with wealthier individuals. Though I see no reason why wealthier individuals could not avail themselves of the same advantage through their own nonprofits there by negating, and likely defeating, the advantage gained by poorer individuals through such means. If this were restricted to nonprofits I might be inclined to favour it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It's not all about the personal rights of the speaker. It's not just the speaker that is affected by suppressing political speech.

I would not argue that it effects more than the speaker but the speaker is with whom the right is invested and intentionally or not the court is investing that right with persons fictional. Does Mickey Mouse get to campaign for candidates? Joe Camel?

 

[drankin]

Does Mickey Mouse get to campaign for candidates? Joe Camel?

Yes and yes. The government cannot restrict the freedom of speech from factual or fictional people.

 

[edpell]

There never was enforceable law against depositing money in a pols swiss bank account. So as far I can see nothing has changed.

 

[edpell]

Or, money talks everyone else walks

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yes and yes. The government cannot restrict the freedom of speech from factual or fictional people.

That's a rather sad state of affairs in my opinion.

 

[BobG]

Why must I argue something I'm not claiming? I'm claiming exactly what SCOTUS ruled, that government can't suppress political speech even if we assume that the "speaker" has no political speech rights.

How about if the speaker does have political speech rights?

For instance, a military person doesn't lose their freedom of speech rights just because they've joined the military. They can still participate in a war protest if they disagree with that particular war. They can't participate in a war protest wearing a military uniform and/or identifying themselves as a military member. In other words, they can't portray themselves as a military member against the war - just as a regular citizen against the war.

Likewise, an employee of a company that writes a "Letter to the Editor" criticizing that company's policies and identifies themselves as an employee of that company in the letter can be fired. It's one thing to have a customer claim a company cheated them. It's quite another to have an employee claim the company cheats customers on a routine basis.

Surely, the inside info provided by an employee serves some public service beyond that individual employee's rights - at least, if the info is credible enough to stand on its own weight. An unsubstantiated accusation or a false accusation by a disgruntled employee isn't very informative.

In other words, freedom of speech isn't absolute. There can be limits in how it's applied without violating a person's civil rights (at least according to the courts, since a few may disagree that any kind of limits are permissable).

I agree that the SCOTUS decision could basically be expressed as: "The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Laws enacted to control or suppress speech may operate at different points in the speech process. The following are just a few examples of restrictions that have been at-tempted at different stages of the speech process—all laws found to be invalid: ... "

I think they could have easily found a few examples that were found to be valid, had they wanted to (and Stevens notes a few in his dissent).

Almost more interesting than the decision was Roberts and Alito feeling it necessary to explain their opinion on "the important principles of judicial restraint and stare decisis implicated in this case." This was what the public was interested in hearing during the confirmation hearings for each of them.

The most surreal portion of the decision has to be Stevens's dissent, where he says, "Congress surely has both wisdom and experience in these matters that is far superior to ours.” Except this is a quote from a previous case, "Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. v. FEC"; and the quote comes from the dissent, not the decision; and the person writing the dissent was Stevens. He couldn't just say that he felt a Congress staffed by politicians that had to know elections in order to get elected were better at figuring out campaign laws than judges appointed for life. He had to quote himself from a previous case. Is that self-pretentiousness or what?!

Sometimes, the reading of these is so interesting you forget to care about the decision.

 

[drankin]

That's a rather sad state of affairs in my opinion.

Why would we restrict Mickey Mouse's political speech?

 

[Nebula815]

And I am quite certain that individuals are capable of exercising their freedom of speech during the most important phases of elections individually or in groups other than corporations. I still have not seen any arguments as to why they should be allowed to use a corporation as a proxy for this.
I can think of only one and that would be that several poorer individuals, through a nonprofit, can hopefully compete financially with wealthier individuals. Though I see no reason why wealthier individuals could not avail themselves of the same advantage through their own nonprofits there by negating, and likely defeating, the advantage gained by poorer individuals through such means. If this were restricted to nonprofits I might be inclined to favour it.

SCOTUS doctrine, from my understanding, is that the First Amendment protects the right of the speaker to speak and the right of the public to hear it. On corporations, as has been shown, any corporations distributing and/or selling books, making films or commercials, etc...could be restricted from doing so right during the important part of the campaign.

So when the White House was saying that "Fox News is not a legitimate news organization...it is more an arm of the Republican party..." does this mean that the White House could use the campaign finance laws to silence Fox News in the last sixty or thirty days of a campaign? At least with their own view of the matter?

It is not a good idea to limit political speech.

 

[BobG]

So, the overall impact of this decision is increased overhead for corporations that generally contribute to both parties almost evenly (In 2008 pro-business political action commitess spent $327 million dollars. About 51% of that money wound up going to Republicans, while Democrats received about 49%. ) The additional impact is to provide incumbents with an election advantage, since corporations are more likely to cultivate stable, long term relationships with politicians already in office than to generate money to some rogue upstart, hell-bent on changing things in Washington.

Hmmm, self-referencing oneself is actually kind of pleasing.

 

[Nebula815]

The additional impact is to provide incumbents with an election advantage, since corporations are more likely to cultivate stable, long term relationships with politicians already in office than to generate money to some rogue upstart, hell-bent on changing things in Washington.

Would have to disagree. The campaign-finance laws helped incumbents. There's nothing more beneficial to an incumbent than making it where corporations, unions, etc...cannot criticize that incumbent via political speech during the most important phase of the election.

 

[BobG]

Would have to disagree. The campaign-finance laws helped incumbents. There's nothing more beneficial to an incumbent than making it where corporations, unions, etc...cannot criticize that incumbent via political speech during the most important phase of the election.

Historical re-election rates

Interactive campaign fund comparison

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/cost.php

If you're just looking at McCain-Feingold (BCRA of 2003), then the most accurate answer is probably that campaign finance reform has had no effect one way or the other. It's been too easy to find ways around it (PACs, 527s, etc).

Of course, recent gerrymandering has probably been as signficant as campaign dollars in helping incumbents. The Senate would seem to be a better indicator. I wouldn't put too much stock in the idea that the BCRA2003 was responsible for the re-election rate decreasing in 2006 and 2008. Sweeping revolutions in the Senate just don't seem to be what they used to be.

In other words, there's a legitimate problem (or else voters are just more satisfied with our politicians than we used to be). I don't think the BCRA fixed it, regardless of whether it's constitutional or not.