Yeah for Corporate Personhood!

[drone]

Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending
With a 5-4 ruling, SCOTUS has sold the American people out to corporate interests.

While they are at it, they may as well fix it so actual, breathing, citizens count as only 3/5ths...

[CrossLOPER]

This is unfortunate. Although I don't vote very often, this is still distressing.

[Subotan]

This is particularly distressing, since I have an exam on Campaign Finance tomorrow. Everything I spent a month learning has suddenly been blown out the window by a colossal fart, courtesy of SCOTUS and corporations

[Lemur]

Remember, it's not money, it's free speech.

And at risk of committing a Godwin: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." — Benito Mussolini

[Crazed Rabbit]

Good, that law is unconstitutional.

“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of its conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

From the Majority Opinion:

The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations — including nonprofit advocacy corporations — either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.

This isn't any sort of sell out; it's a recognition of the first amendment and a strike against incumbent protection laws passed by those same incumbents.

CR

[Ronin]

Good, that law is unconstitutional.

“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of its conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

From the Majority Opinion:

The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations — including nonprofit advocacy corporations — either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.

This isn't any sort of sell out; it's a recognition of the first amendment and a strike against incumbent protection laws passed by those same incumbents.

CR

you do realize that the word "amendment" itself states that the original writers made a mistake right??

so why can´t the amendment itself be wrong? saying that corporations can essentially "buy" political power does not lead anywhere good.

[Crazed Rabbit]

you do realize that the word "amendment" itself states that the original writers made a mistake right??

so why can´t the amendment itself be wrong? saying that corporations can essentially "buy" political power does not lead anywhere good.

Are you familiar with how the Bill of Rights came into being?

Also - this is a country ruled by law, law based and restricted by the constitution. No one can legally declare part of the constitution wrong and ignore it. Any wrongness is irrelevant, and can only be changed by constitutional amendment.

CR

[Lemur]

Ronin, CR is correct, the Bill of Rights has every bit of force and applicability as the Constitution. Point of law, the amendments are a part of the Constitution. That's how we roll.

Personally, I find the awarding of full rights and privileges to corporations that we award to citizens problematic, both in application and origin, seeing as it was invented and inserted into the Supreme Court's records in 1886 by a court reporter. Weird but true.

Santa Clara County in California was trying to levy a property tax against the Southern Pacific Railroad. The railroad gave numerous reasons why it shouldn't have to pay, one of which rested on the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause: the railroad was being held to a different standard than human taxpayers.

When the case reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.

Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published "headnotes." (Davis had already had a long career in public service, and at one point was president of the board of directors for the Newburgh & New York Railroad Company.) In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment--which would ordinarily never see print--in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.

-edit-

Here's a decent Wiki article about the history, pros and cons of corporate personhood.

[Crazed Rabbit]

This isn't so much about corporate personhood as whether a group of people can engage in free speech. And the law extended beyond corporations to non-profit groups as well.

In the end, it's about free speech. It's whether or not you support free speech, and that means all free speech, not only speech you agree with, or speech that isn't offensive, or speech from certain groups of people.

CR

[Lemur]

This isn't so much about corporate personhood as whether a group of people can engage in free speech. And the law extended beyond corporations to non-profit groups as well.

Legally incorrect. A "non-profit group" falls within the legal definition of corporation, as would an LLC, co-op, what-have-you.

Free speech is a privilege of citizens, so it's a bit weird to declare that this isn't about corporate personhood. Are you suggesting that the bill of rights extends to all creatures, organizations and entities so long as they are within the United States? Does this mean dogs have free speech? How about robots? How about dolphins? How about illegal immigrants? If not, why not?

This is entirely about corporate personhood. We are unique in western democracies in that we extend to corporations the same rights and privileges that we accord to citizens. And it's all based on the independent actions of an 1886 court reporter (although that dubious precedent has been upheld many times since).

[Crazed Rabbit]

Legally incorrect. A "non-profit group" falls within the legal definition of corporation, as would an LLC, co-op, what-have-you.

Ah.

Free speech is a privilege of citizens, so it's a bit weird to declare that this isn't about corporate personhood. Are you suggesting that the bill of rights extends to all creatures, organizations and entities so long as they are within the United States? Does this mean dogs have free speech? How about robots? How about dolphins? How about illegal immigrants? If not, why not?

Corporations are merely groups of citizens; do they lose rights they had individually if they join together? Why should they? The examples listed in the majority opinion illustrate to me why corporations should be able to speak freely.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Corporations are merely groups of citizens; do they lose rights they had individually if they join together?

Well, all of the individuals in the corporation can speak individually, correct? It does seem a bit odd.

[Lemur]

Corporations are merely groups of citizens; do they lose rights they had individually if they join together? Why should they?

Corporations have key differences from an individual citizen. Among them:

• They are immortal
• They are (usually) immune from most forms of liability*
• They lack personal (and often organizational) legal accountability
• They usually command far more money free speech than any citizen
• They are able to carve out legal and financial exemptions not available to any citizen
• For commercial corporations, their primary mission is the maximization of shareholder value (which is as it should be), not the common weal, which gives them a natural difference of focus and interest from a citizen

And so forth. To their long list of advantages over citizens, we also add the full spectrum of rights and privileges accorded to individuals, who have the disadvantage of dying and not having immunity from liability.

Obviously, I think this is misguided, and should be re-examined. We're the only western democracy that does this, and the latest Supreme Court decision just makes the contrast starker.

______________
*Exception being sole proprietor businesses, but you knew that already.

[Beskar]

Victory for the Ferengi!

[drone]

Corporations are not groups of citizens, they are chartered institutions with various state governments (in the US). A person can incorporate him/herself (therefore not a group), a non-citizen can control a corporation through share ownership, and corporations can control other corporations. The problem is with for-profit corporations influencing elections and essentially bribing elected officials with corporate profit (usually without the say-so of the shareholders), either directly through contributions or indirectly through other front corporations.

I'm all for having legal protections for companies, but there are some "rights" they just shouldn't have.

[Ronin]

Are you familiar with how the Bill of Rights came into being?

Also - this is a country ruled by law, law based and restricted by the constitution. No one can legally declare part of the constitution wrong and ignore it. Any wrongness is irrelevant, and can only be changed by constitutional amendment.

CR

Ronin, CR is correct, the Bill of Rights has every bit of force and applicability as the Constitution. Point of law, the amendments are a part of the Constitution. That's how we roll.

I wasn´t proposing you ignore the bill of rights....I was proposing you guys change it.

[Lemur]

I wasn´t proposing you ignore the bill of rights....I was proposing you guys change it.

No need. Corporations are never mentioned in the bill of rights, so it's just a question of whether or not the rights of citizens extend to such organizations.

[Vladimir]

Let's see everyone line up along expected lines and throw down. Go on now, toe your respective line.

By law corporations are U.S. Persons. Anyone can incorporate. If money is the primary determining factor in elections we would have had President Kerry.

[Lemur]

Vladimir, the "law" (actually what they call a "precedent") has already been addressed, and I don't see you responding in any way to the substance.

Toyota is majority foreign-owned. Please explain why Toyota should have the same (actually superior) rights to free speech as a U.S. citizen.

[Tellos Athenaios]

It is certainly an odd thing that laws for U.S. citizens are applied to U.S. corporations & ngo's seeing as U.S. corporations are not U.S. citizens themselves. Sure they are a legal persona (entity) but surely not equivalent to a private citizen (different kind of persona); as is evidenced by the various laws that do apply to corporations & ngo's but not to citizens and vice versa.

[drone]

By lawpsuedo-judicial fiat corporations are U.S. Persons. Anyone can incorporate. If money is the primary determining factor in elections we would have had President Kerry.

Fixed that for you.

[Beskar]

Let's see everyone line up along expected lines and throw down. Go on now, toe your respective line.

By law corporations are U.S. Persons. Anyone can incorporate. If money is the primary determining factor in elections we would have had President Kerry.

I thought Money and Corperations is what got Bush elected as he overthrow the election results which showed Al Gore should have been President of the United States.

So much for democracy.

[Lemur]

I thought Money and Corperations is what got Bush elected as he overthrow the election results which showed Al Gore should have been President of the United States.

No, that's not even vaguely how it happened, and I seriously doubt you could find any sourcing to back that black helicopter theory up.

If you want to point toward anything particular from the spectacular mess that was the 2000 presidential election, it would be the Supreme Court's decision to end the process, and even that is debatable.

This sort of empty sloganeering is a distraction from the issue at hand, which is the personhood of corporations in the U.S., and their now-affirmed constitutional right to free speech.

-edit-

Looks like that socialist hippie, Thomas Jefferson, was all over this: "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

[Kralizec]

I thought Money and Corperations is what got Bush elected as he overthrow the election results which showed Al Gore should have been President of the United States.

It's not as if Democrats don't have companies backing them, you know.
Bush won because he won the majority in the electoral college, even though Gore won the "popular vote". These sort of things happen when you carve the electorate up in pieces and it's not specific to the US.

...

Corporations are merely groups of citizens; do they lose rights they had individually if they join together? Why should they? The examples listed in the majority opinion illustrate to me why corporations should be able to speak freely.

Stockholders in commercial companies can still donate from their private pockets, so I don't see a problem there. Do CEO's even ask their stockholders for permission to fund a political campaign? I can't put my finger on it, but something feels wrong here - and it's not just the amount of money concerned.

OTOH with non-commercial entities specificall created to advocate certain political views, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to fund campaigns. Prohibiting them from even endorsing a candidate seems strange.

[Ironside]

Let's see everyone line up along expected lines and throw down. Go on now, toe your respective line.

By law corporations are U.S. Persons. Anyone can incorporate. If money is the primary determining factor in elections we would have had President Kerry.

Why would you be so stupid to only buy support one of the candidates? And should you actually face an honest candidate that opposes you, you can slander express your opinion on him by proxy (which is partially the original issue, even if that was probably honest dirt).

I mean, we can now have a Glenn Beck inc. if I got the rules correctly.

[Subotan]

I thought the Bill of Rights was created to protect the rights of the individual, as the original constitution is too government-y.

[drone]

Do CEO's even ask their stockholders for permission to fund a political campaign? I can't put my finger on it, but something feels wrong here - and it's not just the amount of money concerned.

That would be a no. I suppose it could technically be claimed by the board as necessary under their fiduciary duty, but in this case it should limit the "speech" to commercial speech (with the requisite truth in advertising requirements).

OTOH with non-commercial entities specificall created to advocate certain political views, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to fund campaigns. Prohibiting them from even endorsing a candidate seems strange.

This. With the restriction of for-profit ownership/contributions to these non-commercial entities, of course.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is one of those moments where I am ashamed that my government just gave me another big ole facepalm moment.

[Xiahou]

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or
jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political
speech, but Austin’s antidistortion rationale would permit the Gov
ernment to ban political speech because the speaker is an association
with a corporate form. Political speech is “indispensable to decision
making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech
comes from a corporation.”

Makes sense to me.

From what I see, corporate personhood is tangential to the issue. Corporations are, simply put, associations of citizens and there's no constitutional basis for denying these groups First Amendment rights. The decision isn't saying that corporations get First Amendment protection because they are corporations- it's saying that free speech can't be denied on the basis of being a corporation as opposed to any other group of citizens.

I'm glad to see McCain-Feingold weakened.

edit:

This. With the restriction of for-profit ownership/contributions to these non-commercial entities, of course.

It's worth noting that the corporation in this decision was a non-profit.

[jabarto]

I came here to post exactly this. I know this country is going to hell in a handbasket, but I never thought the Supreme Court would finally be the one to demolish democracy as we know it. This is...no. THere are no words for this.