News Special interests have NO limits in elections.

[Proton Soup]

if we're going to limit spending by corps and/or individuals, i think we need to limit spending by the government as well.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

The problem is this: How does one protect the first ammendment while maintaining a credible election process. There are two imperatives in play here, not just one. While you are right to worry about free speech, if the election process can be driven by corporate-funded disinformation services, democracy has no hope. Again I remind you that there is no reason to assume that any multinational corporation has any national loyalites [or domestic corporations for that matter] - by definition, the bottom line drives their loyalties whether it is in the best interest of the country or not. In the case of multinationals, why would you defend foreign influence in US elections? Do you really want foreign suppliers deciding who gets elected through virtually unlimited funding for advertising, faux documetaries, fantasy political movies, and year-round political commericials?

In my own experience, most people whom I talk with [in person] who HATE Obama [which around here is pretty much everyone!], have their heads so filled with disinformation that one hardly knows where to begin. I don't care if someone disagrees with me. That is how democracy works. What bothers me is when their opinion is based on Fox/hate-radio nonsense. To allow unlimited influence by these disinformation services would be catastrophic. Already we are waaaaaay over the line wrt excessive influence. I believe that democracy itself is in great jeopardy. Democracy requires an informed electorate, not misinformed hate-the-liberal-at-any-cost voters. Things have gotten so bad that to even mention something like "alternatives to petroleum" is generally peceived as a "liberal" issue, and not an "American" issue. This is absolute craziness!

Again, if there is no difference between a real and fictional person, I want to know what logic prevents corporations from having a vote.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Speaking of excessive influence,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corporation

many at the Wall Street Journal considered Murdoch's purchase of the company to be the end of the Journal as we know it. As a former subscriber who has read some recent quotes from the paper, it is apparent that the worst has indeed happened. It often reads more as a tabloid than the trusted and prestigious conservative news source that it once was.

 

[Al68]

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.

But a corporation's legal personhood isn't about rights, it's the means by which we can consider a corporation to be a party to any act, good or bad. Without it, a corporation is nothing more than a tool used by people to perform actions, and like any tool, could not be considered a party to any action. Crimes aren't committed by tools. Tools can't be sued, named as defendants, enter into contracts, etc.

So, you're right, this wouldn't be an issue without corporate "personhood", but only because a corporation then, as merely a tool, could no more be legally considered an "offender" than any other tool used by a person to commit an unlawful act. It's not because the tool might have "rights".

But neither side in this case objected to corporate personhood, and neither side argued that a corporation has "rights".

The outcome of this ruling might be the same outcome as that obtained by hypothetically considering a corporation to have "rights", but that isn't in the chain of reasoning contained in the majority opinion.

Edit: You pointed out that the people involved were free to engage in political speech as long as they didn't use a corporation to do it. What if the law in question banned the use of video recorders instead of corporations for this purpose, so that people would be free to engage in political speech as long as they didn't use a video recorder? Would you then call the ruling the equivalent of "vesting rights" in video recorders?

Personhood makes a corporation a special tool, but it just make no sense to suggest that this ruling "vested rights" in any tool.

 

[Nebula815]

The problem is this: How does one protect the first ammendment while maintaining a credible election process. There are two imperatives in play here, not just one. While you are right to worry about free speech, if the election process can be driven by corporate-funded disinformation services, democracy has no hope.

Well I don't know if I'd say elections are driven by corporate-funded disinformation services. Corporations, unions, non-profits, etc...can produce political speech to get their opinions on issues out, some are outright dis-information, others can be factual, it depends. It isn't like political parties themselves don't engage in dis-information either.

For example, if its the month before a Presidential election and a Democrat presidential candidate is pushing for carbon cap-and-trade and they say it will "create green jobs and help the economy" and they started hitting the airwaves with tons of ads on this, and then a set of commercials are produced that basically say all of this is baloney, but it turns out they was funded by the oil industry, well so what? People can listen to both, and make up their own minds. They will take into account who is saying what in both cases.

Maybe then Greenpeace makes a film saying cap-and-trade is good or whatnot. Again, free political speech is important.

Again I remind you that there is no reason to assume that any multinational corporation has any national loyalites [or domestic corporations for that matter] - by definition, the bottom line drives their loyalties whether it is in the best interest of the country or not. In the case of multinationals, why would you defend foreign influence in US elections? Do you really want foreign suppliers deciding who gets elected through virtually unlimited funding for advertising, faux documetaries, fantasy political movies, and year-round political commericials?

Corporations already were permitted to do this stuff, they just were banned from doing it during the most crucial portion of the election, the last sixty to thirty days of elections. It is up to the people to be smart enough to sift through the information that is false.

And corporations can get around such rules if they own media organizations. For example, General Electric very much wants cap-and-trade and contracts for windmills and so forth from the government.

They own MSNBC right now, and not too long ago, they were running a "Green Week." Glenn Beck was ranting about it, but otherwise, no one seemed to care.

Now imagine if Fox News was bought by General Dynamics or Raytheon and was running a "War Week," HOLY HIGH HEAVENS

Or if Fox News was purchased by a big oil corporation and was running specials about how global warming was baloney. Wouldn't the rest of the media and the White House be screaming, "Fox News is not a legitimate news organization! They are an arm of the oil industry and the Republican party!"

Blood vessels would be bursting if Fox was really under such ownership.

Or I can do even better. Fox News owned by an oil corporation and this oil corporation is lobbying the Republican president (I am pretending here) to remove the ban on off-shore oil drilling (like GE's pushing for windmill contracts, carbon cap-and-trade, etc...). And meanwhile Fox News is running specials about how global warming is baloney and how lifting the ban on drilling will create all sorts of new jobs.

Of course, the WH is already claiming Fox News isn't legit and is an arm of the Republican party, meanwhile MSNBC, which is owned by General Electric, whose own CEO (Jeffrey Immelt) I believe was an adviser to Obama, well no one says, "MSNBC is not a legitimate news organization. They are nothing but an arm of a corporation that has a vested interest in seeing this administration's climate control legislation pass, and they are a quasi-arm of the Democrat party in this sense."

Actually, in such a case (oil corp owning Fox), if anti-global warming and pro-oil drilling specials were being aired, you probably could say the Fox News corporation was just a propaganda arm for the oil industry. But that wouldn't mean the government should have any right to shut it up. After all, who is to say that the oil drilling won't create jobs or that the specials are wrong on climate change? Again, bad to let government decide.

On the other hand, I find it rather hypocritical the current administration does not see MSNBC this same way, which I think one could claim is a quasi-arm of the "green" industry to a degree.

My bigger concern with foreign corporations or foreign-owned corporations would be regarding lobbying. Should we just ban lobbying outright, since foreign corporations and foreign governments lobby our government all the time? Would there be bad unforseen consequences of this?

I understand your point about corporations with foreign ownership being able to engage in political speech, but you have to be very careful when you are regarding speech issues because you can give the government too much power.

In my own experience, most people whom I talk with [in person] who HATE Obama [which around here is pretty much everyone!], have their heads so filled with disinformation that one hardly knows where to begin. I don't care if someone disagrees with me. That is how democracy works. What bothers me is when their opinion is based on Fox/hate-radio nonsense. To allow unlimited influence by these disinformation services would be catastrophic.

What "unlimited" influence? All they do is air programming. There is nothing to stop alternative programming from being aired. Market-wise, conservative-libertarian talk radio seems to be more successful, but that does not stop anyone from creating leftwing networks or talk shows.

Are you really saying Fox News and talk radio are dangerous to democracy? They need to be controlled? Who decides what constitutes "legitimate" information in such an instance then?

And BTW, for all their supposed unlimited influence, the Democrats still won Congress in 2006 and Barack Obama won the Presidency in 2008.

Already we are waaaaaay over the line wrt excessive influence. I believe that democracy itself is in great jeopardy. Democracy requires an informed electorate,

YES, and thanks to the Internet, talk radio, television, and books, this is more possible than ever before! Never before have people had the ability to become so informed. It is the greatest confluence of ideas ever seen in the history of democracy, and you think this is a BAD thing??

As an unfortunate side effect, yes there's a lot more noise out there too, but smart people can pick through it.

You really believe too many people getting to say their thoughts is bad for democracy?

Remember, democracy depends, as you say, on an informed electorate. But it is up to the electorate itself to make sure it is being informed properly. That is one of the key components of democracy, and requires responsible citizens.

One cannot argue that it is up to the government to ensure that the people are properly informed by deciding what information is "legitimate" and what is not.

Are you saying government needs to assign a group of people made up of "elites" who "know best" to decide what networks, talk shows, tv shows, books, magazines, etc...are legitimate, and which are not? A group of people made up of folks such as yourself?

not misinformed hate-the-liberal-at-any-cost voters. Things have gotten so bad that to even mention something like "alternatives to petroleum" is generally peceived as a "liberal" issue, and not an "American" issue. This is absolute craziness!

Yeah there are your idiots out there, but we should NOT be saying that media and infotainment or information sources of any kind have to be watched and controlled by the government to make sure the information is "legitimate" or "correct."

Again, if there is no difference between a real and fictional person, I want to know what logic prevents corporations from having a vote.

I don't think the SCOTUS ruling said corporations as persons have a right to free speech, it is that infringing on political speech infringes on the First Amendment rights of the people.

 

[Al68]

While you are right to worry about free speech, if the election process can be driven by corporate-funded disinformation services, democracy has no hope. Again I remind you that there is no reason to assume that any multinational corporation has any national loyalites [or domestic corporations for that matter] - by definition, the bottom line drives their loyalties whether it is in the best interest of the country or not. In the case of multinationals, why would you defend foreign influence in US elections?

All of these concerns are equally valid if the source isn't a union or corporation. And the overturned law exempted corporations that the government considered to be primarily "media outlets".

Should government block political speech from AFL-CIO while allowing it from Fox News, because the government determines that one is a "media outlet" while the other isn't? That's exactly what this law did.

Allowing government to pick and choose which sources of political speech to block and which to allow is a much bigger threat to democracy than for people to have access to all political speech, both information and disinformation, and decide for themselves what to think.

 

[BobG]

The problem is this: How does one protect the first ammendment while maintaining a credible election process. There are two imperatives in play here, not just one. While you are right to worry about free speech, if the election process can be driven by corporate-funded disinformation services, democracy has no hope. Again I remind you that there is no reason to assume that any multinational corporation has any national loyalites [or domestic corporations for that matter] - by definition, the bottom line drives their loyalties whether it is in the best interest of the country or not. In the case of multinationals, why would you defend foreign influence in US elections? Do you really want foreign suppliers deciding who gets elected through virtually unlimited funding for advertising, faux documetaries, fantasy political movies, and year-round political commericials?

I think there's more than just two imperatives in play. The primary issue is freedom of the speech and how it affects elections. A third issue is whether corporations (or labor unions, or political parties) even deserve any rights.

I think if there's any doubt about the issue, you should lean on the side of freedom of speech. The phrase, "How does one protect the first ammendment while... " has been used too many times with some very important reason or another substituted for the dot-dot-dots (usually a major war, or sometimes an undeclared war, or many times simply because we don't like Communists). In other words, the SCOTUS hasn't done much to protect free speech in the past. It's generally held that free speech can be suspended or restricted for just about any reason the government invents. In fact, young men can still technically be imprisoned for six years for burning their draft card (it would probably take a lot more effort to convince a police officer to arrest you, though, than it did in the 60's).

I think you have to show a very definite likelihood of elections being corrupted to justify restrictions on free speech. I'm not sure that's the case with past history. It's a definite possibility, but I don't think there's any real evidence to show it's a reality. Even presuming likelihood depends on cynicism more than anything else.

I think the "personhood" of corporations is a completely separate issue that just happens to overlap into the freedom of speech issue in this particular case. The inalienable rights protected in the Bill of Rights applies to individuals, not groups - i.e. the Republican Party has no particular rights; only its members do. There is a separation between the group and its individual members and transference of rights from the individuals to the group isn't an automatic process. (And the First Amendment specifically protects freedom of the press; hence exceptions to the media that may or may not be owned by corporations - the logic doesn't matter here - in fact, what freedom of the press means in today's era could be a fourth issue from this case).

If any credible correlation could be presented that corporate money corrupted elections, then I think they could be regulated, since there is no way a corporation has the same rights as a real person (and I have to admit that most of my bad feelings about this decision stems from the idea that a corporation could have any rights).

I just don't think there's any evidence (other than general cynicism about politicians) to show corporate money actually corrupts elections.

 

[Proton Soup]

The problem is this: How does one protect the first ammendment while maintaining a credible election process. There are two imperatives in play here, not just one. While you are right to worry about free speech, if the election process can be driven by corporate-funded disinformation services, democracy has no hope. Again I remind you that there is no reason to assume that any multinational corporation has any national loyalites [or domestic corporations for that matter] - by definition, the bottom line drives their loyalties whether it is in the best interest of the country or not. In the case of multinationals, why would you defend foreign influence in US elections? Do you really want foreign suppliers deciding who gets elected through virtually unlimited funding for advertising, faux documetaries, fantasy political movies, and year-round political commericials?

In my own experience, most people whom I talk with [in person] who HATE Obama [which around here is pretty much everyone!], have their heads so filled with disinformation that one hardly knows where to begin. I don't care if someone disagrees with me. That is how democracy works. What bothers me is when their opinion is based on Fox/hate-radio nonsense. To allow unlimited influence by these disinformation services would be catastrophic. Already we are waaaaaay over the line wrt excessive influence. I believe that democracy itself is in great jeopardy. Democracy requires an informed electorate, not misinformed hate-the-liberal-at-any-cost voters. Things have gotten so bad that to even mention something like "alternatives to petroleum" is generally peceived as a "liberal" issue, and not an "American" issue. This is absolute craziness!

Again, if there is no difference between a real and fictional person, I want to know what logic prevents corporations from having a vote.

you're complaining that there's not enough censorship? you've got to be kidding me. and you honestly think your rhetoric applies only to those you disagree with?

your post here has convinced me that the supreme court has made the correct decision. it is not up to people like you to decide what is acceptable speech and what is not acceptable. individually, the electorate certainly does contain a lot of dim bulbs, and i know they annoy you, but collectively they do a fairly good job of assessing what works and what does not.

 

[turbo]

There's a lot of smoke being blown about this decision, as if corporations *as private entities* deserve the right to spend all the money they want to buy elections as a matter of "free speech". Those who claim that McCain-Feingold and other campaign finance reforms are attacking "free speech" are somehow conveniently forgetting that each and every member of each corporation who is a citizen has the right to vote, and they have the right to donate money to whomever they want, and say whatever they want for or against candidates or issues. No single person is ever stripped of their rights when corporations are restricted from dumping billions into our elections. Not one. When corporations are free to spend as much as they want to buy elections, they can easily shout down locally-funded grass-roots movements and stifle free discussion, and that effectively disenfranchises us all, to some extent.

Corporations already have disproportionate influence in DC, and if the fiction of "Corporation=Person" is allowed to stand, we are in an inexorable slide toward facism. Eisenhower warned about the growing power of corporate interests, especially those involved in defense industries. Unfortunately, the US populace has become complacent and sit on their hands when our government denies its citizens affordable access to health care, education, and other necessities while corporations make obscene profits. BTW, I don't give Obama any good marks on this score. He and Geithner have not reined in Wall Street or forced them to pay for the damage they inflicted on our country's economy with their wild gambling schemes. Tonight's State of the Union Address had better be a doozy, not only with admissions of guilt and responsibility, but some clear path out of this mess, including getting the influence of corporations out of our government.

 

[Proton Soup]

they're not buying elections, they're buying advertising, which is speech. speech is not a magical force that compels people to vote for things.

 

[turbo]

they're not buying elections, they're buying advertising, which is speech. speech is not a magical force that compels people to vote for things.

Have you ever seen what happens to advertising in small markets when monied interests want in? There are probably a half-dozen private TV stations in Maine, and a corporation could easily buy up every ad-slot around the news and prime-time and swamp grass-roots efforts who can't afford to buy ad-time when the corporations have driven up the price, even if there are adequate slots left. Fall 2010 is going to be a bloody mess in the small states, particularly.

 

[drankin]

Have you ever seen what happens to advertising in small markets when monied interests want in? There are probably a half-dozen private TV stations in Maine, and a corporation could easily buy up every ad-slot around the news and prime-time and swamp grass-roots efforts who can't afford to buy ad-time when the corporations have driven up the price, even if there are adequate slots left. Fall 2010 is going to be a bloody mess in the small states, particularly.

That's an advertising issue not a free speech issue.

 

[turbo]

That's an advertising issue not a free speech issue.

By couching their decision as a "free speech" issue the activists on the court have performed a slick sleight-of-hand which will let corporations block less-well-funded groups from the airwaves. Our little TV stations have a limited number of ad-slots that they can sell during the news and prime-time. The rest are held by the networks, who use them to hawk medications, cars, etc. Corporations can very easily buy ALL the slots held by the affiliates in news-hours and prime-time and effectively block citizens' groups from being able to use that medium. THAT is a free-speech issue, not an advertising issue.

 

[drankin]

By couching their decision as a "free speech" issue the activists on the court have performed a slick sleight-of-hand which will let corporations block less-well-funded groups from the airwaves. Our little TV stations have a limited number of ad-slots that they can sell during the news and prime-time. The rest are held by the networks, who use them to hawk medications, cars, etc. Corporations can very easily buy ALL the slots held by the affiliates in news-hours and prime-time and effectively block citizens' groups from being able to use that medium. THAT is a free-speech issue, not an advertising issue.

IF you ever see this happen, let us know. Regardless, the ability to put up commercials is not a right. If someone is "grass-roots" and wants to put out a message and can't or won't pay for a commercial spot, then he/she will need to enroll his/her community into his/her cause. Pass out flyers, post articles on the net, put on events that will attract the media, etc.

 

[turbo]

It will happen and then it will be too late. SCOTUS has sabotaged participatory democracy with this activism. They had all kinds of options available to them, not just the nuclear one, but they chose the most severe "remedy" possible.

 

[Proton Soup]

Have you ever seen what happens to advertising in small markets when monied interests want in? There are probably a half-dozen private TV stations in Maine, and a corporation could easily buy up every ad-slot around the news and prime-time and swamp grass-roots efforts who can't afford to buy ad-time when the corporations have driven up the price, even if there are adequate slots left. Fall 2010 is going to be a bloody mess in the small states, particularly.

perhaps grassroots=underpeopled. and perhaps they could do what everyone else has been doing, buy their own printing presses. buy your own news organizations and route around the old campaigning laws, just like Fox and the NYT.

 

[BobG]

By couching their decision as a "free speech" issue the activists on the court have performed a slick sleight-of-hand which will let corporations block less-well-funded groups from the airwaves. Our little TV stations have a limited number of ad-slots that they can sell during the news and prime-time. The rest are held by the networks, who use them to hawk medications, cars, etc. Corporations can very easily buy ALL the slots held by the affiliates in news-hours and prime-time and effectively block citizens' groups from being able to use that medium. THAT is a free-speech issue, not an advertising issue.

IF you ever see this happen, let us know. Regardless, the ability to put up commercials is not a right. If someone is "grass-roots" and wants to put out a message and can't or won't pay for a commercial spot, then he/she will need to enroll his/her community into his/her cause. Pass out flyers, post articles on the net, put on events that will attract the media, etc.

It can happen in small markets without good cable TV access. Presumably, satellite TV will eventually alleviate that in small markets, but I'm not sure how pervasive satellite TV is in rural markets.

There was a time when TV and radio had a "Fairness Doctrine" that ensured equal access to public airwaves (i.e. - a radio station or TV station couldn't own the frequencies they used. They used a public resource and owed an obligation to the public in return). If a TV station aired one point of view, they had to allow equal time to the opposing point of view (at their own cost if they couldn't find anyone willing to pay to present the opposing view). Ducking controversial issues wasn't an option, either. Providing equal access was just a cost of doing business (one that radio stations and TV stations didn't like, by the way).

With the advent of 100+ channel cable TV, the FCC decided the rules and regulations that made up the Fairness Doctrine were no longer necessary back in the late 80's. I'd say they were correct for over 90% of the population. There are still quite a few exceptions, even 20 years later.

 

[turbo]

Do you want to have some input as to how deer habitat and woodlands are managed? How about inland fisheries? How about the construction of wind-power farms and electrical transmission lines? Can one reasonably expect grass-roots citizen groups to purchase the apparatus of mass-media in order to compete with corporations on each and every issue? That's a ridiculous notion, and it flies in the face of common sense. The activists on the court knew exactly what they were doing with this decision. They are not idiots. They know exactly what kind of effect unbridled spending by corporations will have (especially in small states) and they gave the neo-cons exactly what they want. Chaos and undue influence in the 2010 elections.

 

[turbo]

With the advent of 100+ channel cable TV, the FCC decided the rules and regulations that made up the Fairness Doctrine were no longer necessary back in the late 80's. I'd say they were correct for over 90% of the population. There are still quite a few exceptions, even 20 years later.

Maine is very rural, with poor access to cable, and satellite TV is priced beyond the reach of most of our citizens, so broadcast TV is very important to us. Unfortunately, corporations can now block all citizens groups from the air-waves with a minimal investment. When you figure how much power 100 senators have, and that even sparsely-populated rural states like Maine have two, you can see what a ripe target our senatorial races will be. Olympia Snowe has come out firmly against the SCOTUS decision, and for good reason. As a moderate in the GOP, she is a prime target for the neo-cons.

 

[Proton Soup]

Do you want to have some input as to how deer habitat and woodlands are managed? How about inland fisheries? How about the construction of wind-power farms and electrical transmission lines? Can one reasonably expect grass-roots citizen groups to purchase the apparatus of mass-media in order to compete with corporations on each and every issue? That's a ridiculous notion, and it flies in the face of common sense. The activists on the court knew exactly what they were doing with this decision. They are not idiots. They know exactly what kind of effect unbridled spending by corporations will have (especially in small states) and they gave the neo-cons exactly what they want. Chaos and undue influence in the 2010 elections.

how much is it really going to cost you to start a blog/website/mailing list?

 

[turbo]

how much is it really going to cost you to start a blog/website/mailing list?

And how do I manage to contact the older (and increasing older every year!) electorate? Unless Congress addresses the SCOTUS decision on campaign financing NOW, the electoral process in every small rural state will be absolutely ruined. You cannot contact people who are in their 50's to 80's with email. They are not hooked up. They have broadcast TV. SCOTUS has done an end-run around participatory democracy to benefit the neo-cons, and it will not stop there. We are headed into fascism with no clear ways to stop that unless the Democrats either grow a pair or find their spines.

 

[drankin]

And how do I manage to contact the older (and increasing older every year!) electorate? Unless Congress addresses the SCOTUS decision on campaign financing NOW, the electoral process in every small rural state will be absolutely ruined. You cannot contact people who are in their 50's to 80's with email. They are not hooked up. They have broadcast TV. SCOTUS has done an end-run around participatory democracy to benefit the neo-cons, and it will not stop there. We are headed into fascism with no clear ways to stop that unless the Democrats either grow a pair or find their spines.

Are there no Democrat run corporations? Are corporations only Republican? Are those in their 50's to 80's going to vote only Republican because of corporate endorsements? Are you going to give them some credit with the ability to discern BS?

And they do have mailboxes you know.

 

[Proton Soup]

And how do I manage to contact the older (and increasing older every year!) electorate? Unless Congress addresses the SCOTUS decision on campaign financing NOW, the electoral process in every small rural state will be absolutely ruined. You cannot contact people who are in their 50's to 80's with email. They are not hooked up. They have broadcast TV. SCOTUS has done an end-run around participatory democracy to benefit the neo-cons, and it will not stop there. We are headed into fascism with no clear ways to stop that unless the Democrats either grow a pair or find their spines.

be creative. and remember, you're wanting to do the exact same thing you think the corps are doing, "subvert democracy".

 

[turbo]

Are there no Democrat run corporations? Are corporations only Republican? Are those in their 50's to 80's going to vote only Republican because of corporate endorsements? Are you going to give them some credit with the ability to discern BS?

And they do have mailboxes you know.

Mass media is effective and cheap. Direct-mailings are very expensive and relatively ineffective. I'm sure that you already know this, but are playing the neo-con card. That's OK as long as other PF members have a clue about where you are coming from. Older voters in Maine get their information from radio and TV, and as long as corporations can dominate that, they will be lied to and votes will be bought, just like the activists on the SC intended.

 

[Al68]

...if the fiction of "Corporation=Person" is allowed to stand...

Can you provide any evidence that anyone even so much as made any argument for or against "Corporation=Person" in this case? Or that the issue was addressed in any way by the court? It is your claims that are complete fiction here.

And you contradict yourself: You are insisting on the "corporation=person fiction" by your own sentences.

For example, you said "Corporations commit crimes" instead of "people use corporations as tools to commit crimes". While both may accurately describe the same criminal act, the first sentence attributes personhood to the corporation while the second does not.

Eliminating the legal concept of corporate personhood would eliminate any and all ability of government to hold any corporation responsible for any act ever.

If this isn't obvious, I would suggest a little research into corporate personhood.

 

[Nebula815]

And how do I manage to contact the older (and increasing older every year!) electorate? Unless Congress addresses the SCOTUS decision on campaign financing NOW, the electoral process in every small rural state will be absolutely ruined. You cannot contact people who are in their 50's to 80's with email. They are not hooked up. They have broadcast TV. SCOTUS has done an end-run around participatory democracy to benefit the neo-cons, and it will not stop there. We are headed into fascism with no clear ways to stop that unless the Democrats either grow a pair or find their spines.

Corporations give about 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans. You seem to think all corporations give only to Republicans, this is not so (unions tend to give mostly to Democrats, however).

There is nothing activist about favoring free speech. Free speech is free speech. If one finds things wrong with the written law, then the job is to change the law itself. The Court's job is to interpret the law as is.

And I would not say we are not headed towards fascism. Fascism is what leftists inadverdently lead a nation into by trying to regulate industry in the name of "protecting" the people. This leads to Big Business then becoming very friendly with all the different regulatory agencies set up to regulate them and increased regulations which allow Big Business to dominate the economy.

Not that regulation isn't needed, but it must be light and efficient.

We were far closer to fascism back in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s, when the American economy was dominated by massive corporations and unions. Today, big corporations and unions hold far less power than they used to.

 

[BobG]

Eliminating the legal concept of corporate personhood would eliminate any and all ability of government to hold any corporation responsible for any act ever.

It would do worse than that. Our economy would come crashing to a halt if investors were held personally liable for things the corporation they invested in did. And that pertains to more than criminal acts. Who should pay the retirement and medical benefits of former GM employees if the company goes out of business?

That's why I was wondering what you were getting at several posts back. Corporations socialize the risks of business while keeping the profits private. It could be legitimately argued that there are some bad sides to the idea of corporations. Of course, there's good sides, too, in that reducing risk makes it easier to start businesses, which is good for the economy.

Regardless, corporations have been given a limited "personhood" status for longer than the country has existed and reversing it now would be a very bad thing. You would essentially steal the future from most of your middle class.

The idea of common law, respecting prior court decisions, is that sometimes being able to count on a certain status quo, whether bad or good, is better than the chaos that change would cause.

But, yes, I can't see much advantage to expanding the definition of corporate "personhood" any more than its current status. I thought Stevens had some good points in his dissent.

I still think it's probably a good decision. It was a legitimate 5-4 decision in that really were good points on either side of the argument.

 

[Skyhunter]

I don't know that it changes much. Perhaps it will push lawmakers to enact campaign reform.

The biggest argument against is the role of foreign corporations influencing American politics. But heck, Sun Myung Moon bought the Washington Times and became the voice of the Neo-Cons. His papers op-eds to this day set the political agenda of the right.

 

[Al68]

It would do worse than that. Our economy would come crashing to a halt if investors were held personally liable for things the corporation they invested in did. And that pertains to more than criminal acts. Who should pay the retirement and medical benefits of former GM employees if the company goes out of business?

That's why I was wondering what you were getting at several posts back.

Yeah, I was pointing out that the concept of corporate personhood, as recognized in reality, is very different from what some obviously believe. And, as you point out, stockholders aren't personally liable for the debts of a corporation that goes out of business. But every creditor and employee knows that ahead of time, so that's not a big issue. Even without personhood a company's owners could legally arrange for that, anyway, by simply including a clause in the respective loan and employment agreements in which creditors and employees agree to cancel the debt in case of company failure.

The other issue with limited liability is that the stockholders aren't responsible for any wrongful act judgments against an out of business corporation, so unless a stockholder is sued personally for a wrongful act, he only loses his investment, and a company could not contractually arrange for that without corporate personhood. But I think most people consider this fair enough, since limited liability doesn't prevent anyone from suing a stockholder personally for a wrongful act, if the act was personally committed by the stockholder.

It could be legitimately argued that there are some bad sides to the idea of corporations.

There are disadvantages for sure.

But, yes, I can't see much advantage to expanding the definition of corporate "personhood" any more than its current status.

I agree, but I would note that in this case, neither side objected to corporate personhood, which was my point.

Some people take the concept of personhood way too far, so far that they completely forget that wrongful acts or crimes, while they can be attributed to corporations for legal purposes using the "personhood" doctrine, are all actually committed by real humans using a corporation as a tool.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong...

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/28/us/politics/AP-US-Obama-State-of-the-Union-Text.html?pagewanted=6&_r=1

Once again I see that Obama is keeping up with us. Smart man.

Judge Alito was objecting [mouthing "not true!"]. Is he so buried in his philosophy that he can't see there is an imminent threat to our system of government [if it's not too late already]?

 

[Proton Soup]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/28/us/politics/AP-US-Obama-State-of-the-Union-Text.html?pagewanted=6&_r=1

Once again I see that Obama is keeping up with us. Smart man.

Judge Alito was objecting [mouthing "not true!"]. Is he so buried in his philosophy that he can't see there is an imminent threat to our system of government [if it's not too late already]?

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/07/04/050704fa_fact

“We have a dozen people in his”—Clinton’s—“headquarters . . . and they are all going to get big jobs,” Steiner said. Soon after the tape’s existence was disclosed, Steiner resigned his post. I asked Rosen if aipac suffered a loss of influence after the Steiner affair. A half smile appeared on his face, and he pushed a napkin across the table. “You see this napkin?” he said. “In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.”

 

[Al68]

Judge Alito was objecting [mouthing "not true!"]. Is he so buried in his philosophy that he can't see there is an imminent threat to our system of government [if it's not too late already]?

Two things are obvious from this ruling's responses:

1. Alito and the majority of the court obviously recognize the threat you refer to and believe it is greatly outweighed by the threat of government suppressing political speech.

2. Obama, and others that disagree, are oblivious, or pretend to be oblivious to the threat from government suppressing political speech, like they have their head in the sand. They should change their mascot from donkey to ostrich.

 

[BobG]

...Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong...

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/28/us/politics/AP-US-Obama-State-of-the-Union-Text.html?pagewanted=6&_r=1

Once again I see that Obama is keeping up with us. Smart man.

Judge Alito was objecting [mouthing "not true!"]. Is he so buried in his philosophy that he can't see there is an imminent threat to our system of government [if it's not too late already]?

The problem is that Alito's "not true" could be considered more accurate than Obama's "reversed a century of law".

The true story is that the latest SCOTUS decision is another dent in a century of unsuccessful campaign reform.

It is true that people have been decrying corporate influence ever Teddy Roosevelt bankrolled his re-election campaign with corporate contributions, or, as Daniel Lamont, a former aide to Democratic President Grover Cleveland, bluntly told Roosevelt's opponent, his candidacy was doomed because corporations "have underwritten Roosevelt’s election just as they would underwrite the construction of a railroad to San Francisco.”

It's also true that Roosevelt spent his first term breaking up monopolies such as the Northern Securities Company and intervened in labor-business disputes prior to hitting up corporations for massive campaign contributions. It's also true that Roosevelt reverted to attacking big business as soon as the election was over, or, as steel baron Henry Clay Frick complained, "We bought the son of a *****, and then he did not stay bought."

The century since then has been spent trying unsuccessfully to find ways to keep corporate money out of elections. A timeline from NPR: A Century Of U.S. Campaign Finance Law

So, yes, there's been a century's worth of laws and regulations attempting to limit corporate money in elections and the latest decision is a reversal. It's just that every law has had its own reversal, either via loophole or court decision. Progress hasn't really been reversed if nothing has ever really changed in the first place.

 

[Al68]

The true story is that the latest SCOTUS decision is another dent in a century of unsuccessful campaign reform.

It seems to me that existing lawmakers exercising their power in any way to affect the "campaign financing" of candidates trying to get elected to that same job is inherently corrupt.

And it's corrupt in a way that precludes calling the result of the election "democratic".

Why in the world would anyone claim it's "reform" for those in power to control the campaigns of those seeking power? Is the contradiction not obvious?

 

[BobG]

Have you ever seen what happens to advertising in small markets when monied interests want in? There are probably a half-dozen private TV stations in Maine, and a corporation could easily buy up every ad-slot around the news and prime-time and swamp grass-roots efforts who can't afford to buy ad-time when the corporations have driven up the price, even if there are adequate slots left. Fall 2010 is going to be a bloody mess in the small states, particularly.

That's an advertising issue not a free speech issue.

So, is drankin right? That this whole thing is really an advertising issue - something that surely falls under Congress's right to regulate interstate commerce and this shouldn't have been something considered by the SCOTUS in the first place?

Is free speech limited to message content - having the right to present whatever message you want - and finding a way to present your message is your problem? I.e. - the media for presenting messages can be regulated the same as traffic on a public road can be regulated.

Or, is the ability to buy advertising the same as free speech itself?

At what point does speech turn into action and can actions be protected under the guise of "protecting free speech"?

And is this latest Supreme Court decision the start of a new Lochner era, except in the realm of free speech instead of property? (The Lochner decision started a string of Supreme Court decisions striking down labor laws on safety, minimum wage, maximum hours, etc with the decisions based on property rights.)

 

[mheslep]

Obama was http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache...+political+process.&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" about the foreign corporations aspect. The court went out of its way to leave the law on foreign influences alone.

“We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process.”

 

[turbo]

The "free speech" argument that SCOTUS activists used is absolutely bogus. Not a single officer, board member, employee, or investor of a corporation was denied his or her rights to speak, support candidates, donate money, vote, etc by campaign finance reform. The corporations simply didn't have the right to swamp our air-waves with their propaganda and skew our elections - and now they do.

The justices knew exactly what they were doing - legislating from the bench. To do so, they had to toss out many years of precedent. Once again "neo-conservatives" have proven not to be conservative in the least. They have a radical agenda that will drive our country from oligarchy to outright facism. Corporations already have obscene amounts of control over our government behind the scenes, and now it will get worse.

As an example, there is a very lively debate going on in Maine between organic farmers and larger farming operations that use GMO crops. It is widely acknowledged (even by the GMO guys) that the organic farmers are protecting and perpetuating the diversity of food crops, including heirloom varieties of tomatoes, squash, apples, etc, etc. If there is to be a referendum on set-backs that would protect organic crops (including valuable seed crops) from contamination by GMO crops, what would happen? Monsanto will jump right in and buy up all the available ad-time in news-hours and prime-time in our tiny broadcast TV market, and the organic growers will not be able to get their message out. "Free speech" to the people with the deep pockets - no access to the media for small farmers that don't have a lot of money.

Monsanto wants everyone to have to buy their seed from them, regardless of the damage to genetic diversity. We have a couple of thriving seed businesses in Central Maine - the larger one is Johnny's Selected Seeds, and they offer both GMO and organic seeds. To get the organic seeds, they rely on a smaller seed company called FedCo that buys all of its seed stock, nursery stock, etc from organic farmers - mostly locals. Monsanto could utterly ruin the smaller seed company, and badly damage the larger one, limiting the varieties of seeds they have access to.

 

[BobG]

Obama was http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache...+political+process.&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" about the foreign corporations aspect. The court went out of its way to leave the law on foreign influences alone.

Your statement is more wrong than Obama's! In fact, the site you referenced disagrees with you. They categorized Obama's statement as "Barely True" - not "Wrong" or "False".

Personally, I'd be more inclined to say "Who knows?" than "Barely True". A US corporation that winds up being owned primarily by foreigners falls into a grey area.

I think a corporation run by foreigners couldn't contribute, though. And I'm not even sure how much it matters what nationality the stockholders are - unless a few really rich stockholders from the same country take control of a corporation and hire Americans to run the corporation for them. While I think it's unlikely, there could possibly be some problems. Enough that foreigners taking over one corporation would outweigh all the other corporations that might contribute? Probably not.

In other words, Obama's statement might be theoretically true. It's probably something that won't be a problem in practice.

 

[turbo]

Look at who owns Anheuser-Busch. Should Belgians and Brazilians be able to skew legal initiatives regarding the production, importation and sale of alcoholic beverages in the US?

 

[mheslep]

Your statement is more wrong than Obama's! In fact, the site you referenced disagrees with you. They categorized Obama's statement as "Barely True" - not "Wrong" or "False".

No, read again. I referred only to the foreign influences aspect. The law of the land is that foreign individuals are prohibited from contributing to campaigns and that law still stands.

 

[BobG]

If there is to be a referendum on set-backs that would protect organic crops (including valuable seed crops) from contamination by GMO crops, what would happen? Monsanto will jump right in and buy up all the available ad-time in news-hours and prime-time in our tiny broadcast TV market, and the organic growers will not be able to get their message out. "Free speech" to the people with the deep pockets - no access to the media for small farmers that don't have a lot of money.

The specific example might seem to be an exception, but it does illustrate what I meant by asking whether freedom of speech protects just the content, or does it mean the effort to present a message can't be restricted either. I.e. - freedom of speech means the media (the "roads") have to be unregulated as well.

I can think of a more relevant example of the media, i.e. the "road", being spoiled so badly it became unusable, even if this example didn't pertain to campaigns. During the Schiavo fiasco, one group of people figured out a way to overwhelm search engines so any search for Judge Greer, the judge that decided the case, only displayed page after page of Greer hate sites. That went beyond presenting a viewpoint. That reached the point of deliberately destroying the internet as a medium for finding information. It was the equivalent of blowing up the bridges to bring the flow of information to a halt.

Google revised their algorithms to supposedly prevent that from happening in the future, but I'd predict that new ways to jam search engines will be as prevalent as new viruses and malware. Particularly contentious issues will be jammed so badly by both sides that no one will be able to learn anything about the issue except from Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity.

The definition of freedom of speech and separation of the content of speech vs the media used to present that speech goes beyond just election campaigns.

 

[Skyhunter]

Look at who owns Anheuser-Busch. Should Belgians and Brazilians be able to skew legal initiatives regarding the production, importation and sale of alcoholic beverages in the US?

Obama's statement was accurate. This ruling most certainly opens the door for foreign corporations to influence our elections. Just like this case, foreign corporations can influence elections now with minimal restraint. Any opposition would have to file a lawsuit and wait another year or so for the hearing.

Corporations are not persons. They should not be afforded the same rights.

 

[mheslep]

Obama's statement was accurate. This ruling most certainly opens the door for foreign corporations to influence our elections. Just like this case, foreign corporations can influence elections now with minimal restraint.

No not because of this ruling. Whatever ambiguity existed in the law over foreign influence has not changed due to this ruling.

 

[turbo]

The specific example might seem to be an exception, but it does illustrate what I meant by asking whether freedom of speech protects just the content, or does it mean the effort to present a message can't be restricted either. I.e. - freedom of speech means the media (the "roads") have to be unregulated as well.

One glaring problem is that the fairness doctrine was abandoned, and would have to be reinstated in order to provide air-time for opposing views of political ads. Small media-markets like here in Maine and other less-populous states will be dominated by corporate money if Congress does not act decisively.

As I pointed out a while back, even the very rural, sparsely-populated states each have 2 senators, and given the immense power the Senate wields, senatorial contests in small-population states will from now on be dominated by corporate money in tiny media markets. The neo-con wing of SCOTUS knows this - they are not idiots. Sociopathic ideologues, maybe, but not idiots. They knew exactly what they were doing and they knew the damage it would inflict on participatory democracy and they DON'T care!

 

[BobG]

No, read again. I referred only to the foreign influences aspect. The law of the land is that foreign individuals are prohibited from contributing to campaigns and that law still stands.

Where did Obama refer to foreign individuals contributing to campaigns?

The experts said Obama was right that the ruling could open the door to foreign companies spending on American campaigns, given the general direction of the majority's opinion...

... our experts agreed that Obama erred if he meant to suggest that the issue is settled law. Until test cases proceed and further rulings are handed down, Obama's claim about foreign campaign spending is a reasonable interpretation, and nothing more.

That sure sounds like "he might be right but there's no way to confirm it one way or the other" to me. And besides, I just felt you overstated the case. You might wind up being right.

 

[mheslep]

Where did Obama refer to foreign individuals contributing to campaigns?...

Sorry should have said corporations, or associations per Kennedy.

 

[Skyhunter]

No not because of this ruling. Whatever ambiguity existed in the law over foreign influence has not changed due to this ruling.

It doesn't need to. The environment in which they operate has changed. We already have tremendous foreign influence in our politics as is with FOX news and the Washington Times. This ruling will allow any corporation with foreign interests to unduly influence American politics. Most corporations are multi-national. They will do what they want during the election cycle, and argue the legality later.

The court only hears emergency arguments when there is a possibility of harming George W. Bush. Good luck getting them to rule as to whether or not a multi-national corporation airing political commercials is causing undue harm to a candidate other then a Bush.

 

[Count Iblis]

Can the Chinese government now take over the US?

 

[Skyhunter]

If you read the http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205%5BReargued%5D.pdf", you will note that it was the first issue raised.

Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Olson, are you taking the position that there is no difference in the First Amendment rights of an individual? A corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights. So is there any distinction that Congress could draw between corporations and natural human beings for purposes of campaign finance?

Mr. Olson: What the Court has said in the First Amendment context, New York Times v. Sullivan, is that corporations are persons entitled to protection under the First Amendment.

Justice Ginsburg: Would that include --

Mr. Olson: Now, Justice --

Justice Ginsburg Would that include today's mega-corporation, where many of the investors may be foreign individuals or entities?

Mr. Olson The Court in the past has made no distinction based upon the nature of the entity that might own a share of a corporation.

Justice Ginsburg: Own many shares?

Mr. Olson: Pardon?

Justice Ginsburg: Nowadays there are foreign interests, even foreign governments, that own not one share but a goodly number of shares.

Mr. Olson: I submit that the Court's decisions in connection with the First Amendment and corporations have in the past made no such distinction. However --

Justice Ginsburg: Could they in your view, in the view that you are putting forth, that there is no distinction between an individual and a corporation for First Amendment purposes, then any mega-corporation, even -- even if most of the investors are from abroad, Congress could not limit their spending?

Mr. Olson I'm not -- I'm not saying that, Justice Ginsburg. I'm saying that the First Amendment applies. Then the next step is to determine whether Congress and the government has established a compelling government interest and a narrowly tailored remedy to that interest. If Congress -- and there is no record of that in this case of which I am aware. Certainly the government has not advanced it in its breifs: That there is some compelling governmental interest because of foreign investment in corporation.

If there was, then the Court would look at, determine how serious is that interest, how destructive has it been to the process and whether the -- maybe the limitation would have something to do with the ownership of shares of a corporation or some --

Since the Court's decision offers no "narrowly tailored remedy"... there are no real ground rules.

China, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela are free to air political ads in the 2010 election. If after the fact, it can be shown that the government has a compelling interest, then Congress can offer a narrowly tailored remedy, which the Court could still strike down.

What the court did was not open the special interest floodgates... it has demolished the dam itself.

 

[mheslep]

China, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela are free to air political ads in the 2010 election.

That is a distortion of the facts.

What the court did was not open the special interest floodgates... it has demolished the dam itself.

And that is hyperbole. I don't see any concern that MSNBC may be controlled by China, Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela.