Yeah for Corporate Personhood!

[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.

[Devastatin Dave]

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

The same reason a foreign terrorist and an illegal combatant should be subject to a trial in US civilian court and not by military tribunal.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

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

I think that this is the most interesting facet of this decision - the reality that substantial power to influence American elections is given back to foreign interests. The Economist ponders on just these concerns here.

As far as I can tell, the analysis doesn’t distinguish between domestic and foreign corporations. Not that it would matter much, since a foreign corporation can always establish a domestic subsidiary, or buy an American company: Cities Service, for example, is a unit of PDVSA, the Venezuelan state oil company. So the ruling allows Hugo Chavez to spend as much money as he wants to helping and harming American politicians...

There is no reason to believe that such foreign interests will be overly keen on transparency, either. Whilst there is a lot to be argued for the concept of transparency in elections, it's bordering on the idealistic. Since most corporations find it hard to be entirely transparent on their tax affairs, one might be forgiven in thinking that they will be less than forthcoming about their manoeuvring for power.

I find it hard to understand why anyone, least of all conservatives, think handing over electoral influence to external powers is a good thing. But then I've never understood the fawning over corporate interest either. To me, smaller government requires more power in the citizen's hands - and thus entities that overpower the citizen (and are almost always in favour of big government because it is easier to control than an empowered citizenry) are by definition antithetical to good conservative governance.

EDIT: Further information: Following Lemur's note about Thomas Jefferson it may be of interest to understand that corporations were quite frowned upon in the early days of the United States. It appears it was extrapolations from the judiciary that really started the rot on widening corporate "rights" and then the discovery by government that larger taxes were to be had. (Wikpedia citation unfortunately)

In the United States, government chartering began to fall out of vogue in the mid-1800s. Corporate law at the time was focused on protection of the public interest, and not on the interests of corporate shareholders. Corporate charters were closely regulated by the states. Forming a corporation usually required an act of legislature. Investors generally had to be given an equal say in corporate governance, and corporations were required to comply with the purposes expressed in their charters. Many private firms in the 19th century avoided the corporate model for these reasons (Andrew Carnegie formed his steel operation as a limited partnership, and John D. Rockefeller set up Standard Oil as a trust). Eventually, state governments began to realize the greater corporate registration revenues available by providing more permissive corporate laws. New Jersey was the first state to adopt an "enabling" corporate law, with the goal of attracting more business to the state.[11] Delaware followed, and soon became known as the most corporation-friendly state in the country after New Jersey raised taxes on the corporations, driving them out. New Jersey reduced these taxes after this mistake was realized, but by then it was too late; even today, most major public corporations are set up under Delaware law.

[Skullheadhq]

So the man who can bind the most companies to him, will win the elections berlusconi-style because of the enormous amount of cash he can spend on publicity?

So the one who is most servile to the corporations will become president (or senator)?
And alas, the masses will not vote on who's right or wrong, but because he has a nice face and comes on TV often.

[Lemur]

Banquo, wow, whoah Nelly, geez, zounds, gadzooks. You take away a fella's responsibility to police and read every thread in the Backroom, and suddenly he's got time to research thoroughly and write in-depth essays.

Will need to digest all of the fascinating info you just uncovered. Thank you for bringing something new and interesting to this thread!

[Beskar]

I agree, Lemur. It was a good read.

Glad we haven't lost him.

[Husar]

whoah Nelly

I've got that, too, but yeah, Banquo has made great posts before IMO, this one was interesting to read as well.

So I guess the point about more foreign influence due to this still stands, of course more money doesn't directly translate into votes but there has to be a reason the candidates advertise themselves that much.

[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.

[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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I can see the arguments against giving corporations all rights of a person.

I don't see how you can ban non-profits from advertising against/for someone if they've received money from for-profit companies, though. Trying to keep money out of politics is a battle doomed to fail. Campaign finance reform, and all the regulations that go along with it, serve mainly to help the two main political parties and incumbents prevent challengers, since you need a lawyer(s) to run for government.

Either way, I am very happy with this ruling, because it did unconstitutionally infringe on the free speech rights of non-profit advocacy organizations, in a way to help incumbents.

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.

And the award for hyperbole of the week...goes to you! Congrats!

CR

[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.