Yeah for Corporate Personhood!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't see how this will demolish democracy...

[CrossLOPER]

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.

I don't think this will "demolish" democracy, though it most certainly will not help.

[jabarto]

There are now no - read that: NO - limitations on the ability of the corporations to control our elections.

You really don't see what problems might arise from this?

EDIT: Not you CrossLoper

[Xiahou]

There are now no - read that: NO - limitations on the ability of the corporations to control our elections.

You really don't see what problems might arise from this?

EDIT: Not you CrossLoper

Seeing as how McCain-Feingold didn't exist prior to 2002, I think democracy will survive.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

There are now no - read that: NO - limitations on the ability of the corporations to control our elections.

Actually, that's untrue. You have this fancy thing known as a "vote." Unless you sell it, you're alright.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If a corporation is a legal person then we need to arrest every stockholder who owns part of a corporation. Owning a person is slavery and that is unconstitutional.

[Lemur]

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.

Corporations are not necessarily "associations of citizens," as you well know, and nobody anywhere is suggesting that citizens should be denied any rights of speech.

The implication of your reasoning is that corporate entities are entitled to the full protection of the first amendment. Thus they are citizens, or equivalent. I don't see how you can whistle past the obvious.

[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

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

A compromise should be something like removing personhood from corporations, while allowing them to retain some of the associated rights, while at the same time allowing them to run advertisements for, but not donate directly to, a candidate.

[Xiahou]

The implication of your reasoning is that corporate entities are entitled to the full protection of the first amendment. Thus they are citizens, or equivalent. I don't see how you can whistle past the obvious.

Again, look at the decision:

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech

This is exactly what McCain-Feingold was trying to do- criminally sanctioning citizens for making political speech. Whether the association is a corporation or a boy scout troop makes no difference to that. Yourself and the OP are just injecting one of your pet peeves (corporate personhood) into this situation where it isn't really relevant. The decision, as I read it, says that any citizen or association of citizens has the right to engage in political speech. McCain-Feingold was overruled because it singled out corporations as a specific group that would be denied free speech. I see nothing to indicate that the case would have been decided differently in the absence of corporate personhood- thus it's tangential to the issue. Corporations aren't being extended free speech because they are "persons", they were being unconstitutionally denied it on the basis of being a corporation.

[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.

[Lemur]

Again, look at the decision:

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech

This is exactly what McCain-Feingold was trying to do- criminally sanctioning citizens for making political speech.

Note that in making your rebuttal you use the word "citizens." (Bolding mine.) You automatically assume that a corporation is a citizen, with no critical examination of what law, precedent or constitutionality underlies the basis of your own argument. (And in a feat of breathtaking illogic, assert that the foundational assumption of your argument is "tangential.") Look at the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, no law abridging the freedom of speech, check. As always with law the question becomes, to whom does this apply? If we take the broadest reading, that no speech anywhere can be abridged, that means that China is constitutionally guaranteed the right to buy political ads in the U.S. Oh, China isn't a citizen, you say? The First Amendment didn't specify that it only applies to citizens. Oh you say, it's implicit that it only applies to citizens? Then what is a citizen? Again, I don't see how you can escape the blindingly obvious.

Corporations aren't being extended free speech because they are "persons", they were being unconstitutionally denied it on the basis of being a corporation.

If they are "unconstitutionally denied" a right, that means they are entitled to that right, which means that they enjoy some of the privileges of citizenship.

-edit-

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.

I knew this was all about terrorism somehow. Thanks!

[drone]

Again, look at the decision:

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech

This is exactly what McCain-Feingold was trying to do- criminally sanctioning citizens for making political speech. Whether the association is a corporation or a boy scout troop makes no difference to that. Yourself and the OP are just injecting one of your pet peeves (corporate personhood) into this situation where it isn't really relevant. The decision, as I read it, says that any citizen or association of citizens has the right to engage in political speech. McCain-Feingold was overruled because it singled out corporations as a specific group that would be denied free speech. I see nothing to indicate that the case would have been decided differently in the absence of corporate personhood- thus it's tangential to the issue. Corporations aren't being extended free speech because they are "persons", they were being unconstitutionally denied it on the basis of being a corporation.

There are no mentions of corporations in the constitution, so the unconstitutionality doesn't really apply. Except for the corporate personhood aspect, so it is definitely relevant to this discussion. I also have a problem with the usage of the word "citizen", which implies even more rights to the corporation than "person".

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yes but the problem arises from the fact that:

(a) A corporation is an association of stockholders;
(b) Stockholders need not be citizens;
(c) Stockholders need not be persons.
(d) Stockholders need not otherwise be affiliated with anything US-American at all.

This suggest that this First Amendment cannot apply to corporations in general. And that is completely ignoring the fact that:

(e) Corporations are not held to the same laws as other persona entities.

Things military service do not apply; taxes are a completely different ball game; and social security/ bailout seems to be remarkably one-way. A citizen is generally expected to repay his debt, but it is accepted business risk your corporate debtors may go bankrupt and its debts must be written off.

[Xiahou]

There are no mentions of corporations in the constitution, so the unconstitutionality doesn't really apply. Except for the corporate personhood aspect, so it is definitely relevant to this discussion. I also have a problem with the usage of the word "citizen", which implies even more rights to the corporation than "person".

The point of the decision is that all groups are entitled to free speech. McCain-Feingold singled out corporations for speech restrictions that did not apply to other organizations. "Personhood" of the organization is not important to the underlying decision. If members of your neighborhood chipped in and rented a billboard opposing a city councilman who supported zoning changes, it'd be no problem. If your group incorporated, it could end up being illegal under McCain-Feingold. The court said that making such a distinction has no constitutional basis and they rightly overruled it.

[Xiahou]

Yes but the problem arises from the fact that:

(a) A corporation is an association of stockholders;
(b) Stockholders need not be citizens;
(c) Stockholders need not be persons.
(d) Stockholders need not otherwise be affiliated with anything US-American at all.

That's an interesting line of argument. However, our constitutional protections are typically extended to all who are legally in our country regardless of citizenship. So I wouldn't lose too much sleep over whether some stockholders may or may not be citizens.

[KukriKhan]

So corporations, which may or may not include individual US citizens, enjoy the rights and benefits of US citizenship. They are a person.

But that person is not accountable to all US laws and sanctions. If Microsoft's CEO directs the murder of Apple's CEO, and the act is carried out by a MS employee... Given that MS is a person, entitled to freedom of speech, religion, association, press; freedom from unreasonable search and siezure, and retains the right against self-incrimination and the right to trial by a jury of (its?) peers...

should not all members of that corporation be arrested and held responsible for the murder? Every Board member, every employee, every stockholder?

Ridiculous, of course. Not every such "member" is responsible for the act.

Yet every member, by dint of having owned a share of stock or having been an employee - is accorded constitutional rights. Therefore, corporations are not merely "citizens", they are Super Citizens.

"First Among Equals".

We fought a revolution over this a few years back. Maybe we gotta again.

Bill Gates gives $2K? Fine. His opinion, his money. I give $2K? Fine too. My opinion, my money.

Microsoft or the Post Office, or John Deere Tractor Co gives $2K? Not OK in my book.

[jabarto]

Seeing as how McCain-Feingold didn't exist prior to 2002, I think democracy will survive.

You're off by about 30 years.

Actually, that's untrue. You have this fancy thing known as a "vote." Unless you sell it, you're alright.

Tell me more about your fantasy world where I have the same political influence as a multibillion dollar corporation.

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.



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

CR

what you said is so out of touch with reality that I belive it borders on dissociation.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Tell me more about your fantasy world where I have the same political influence as a multibillion dollar corporation.

They can't vote. Now, I don't believe that monetary donations should be able to come from corporations themselves either, but saying that it spells the end of democracy is ludicrous.

Unflattering reference to previous poster.

I don't know. He presented a fairly well thought-out argument in response to a post he disagreed with. You, by contrast, called him names. Evidently we have different definitions of maturity.

[jabarto]

They can't vote. Now, I don't believe that monetary donations should be able to come from corporations themselves either, but saying that it spells the end of democracy is ludicrous.

I confess, that's more than I expected from you.

I don't know. He presented a fairly well thought-out argument in response to a post he disagreed with. You, by contrast, called him names. Evidently we have different definitions of maturity.

Yes, because calling me hyperbolic without addressing anything I actually said, complete with an dizzying array of emoticons, is so classy.

But you're half right; I should probably elaborate. Nothing - and I mean nothing - good will ever happen in this country until campaign finance reform kicks in. reference to previous poster removed; what he said is so out of touch with reality that it borders on dissociation.

[Lemur]

You're off by about 30 years.

More like 100, going back to Tillman Act of 1907. Talk about yer judicial activists stomping all over precedent, etcetera.

Also, jbarto, it's considered bad form to name-call in the BR, unless you are very, very drunk, or can be very, very funny about it. (To be clear: CR called your comment "hyperbolic," but you called him "unflattering reference to previous poster." So you win the Unsportsmanlike Conduct Lapel Pin and Silly Hat. Never fear, it passes to another winner quickly.)

[Husar]

Well, Kukri is almost right there, except that the workers aren't part of a company but are resource suppliers who make contracts with a company to sell their human resources/work to the company. The shareholders however, should all be jailed.

The problem with company donations as I see it is this:
One guy earns money and decides to spend it politically as he sees fit, this is fine.
Many, many guys earn money but a small group of managers/directors decide how to spend it politically, this is not okay.
As far as the company goes the managers are chosen representatives of sort, or at least one would hope so, but giving them political decision rights using the money the whole company earned seems rather wrong to me, there's a this division of power thing for a reason so why should company managers get power in economic and political aspects? They often already got more political power than they should have anyway.

[Scienter]

I need to read the decision before I comment more, but the idea of it makes me uncomfortable. One of the first things I thought of when I heard about the SCOTUS decision was TV commercials. A gigantic corporation (Monsanto and Wal Mart both come to mind) can afford to buy lots of tv air time to support the congresspeople they want to buy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't see how this will demolish democracy...

McCain-Feingold got the corporate money out of politics, contributions are now all from private citizens, as are political ads and the like ....oh dear, that's not true is it?

The law was bad law and unconstitutional. It deserves to be struck down.


Now, Lemur's larger point -- is it PROPER to accord corporations virtually all of the rights we acknowledge as pertaining to the individual? -- is a much thornier concern.

Hyperbolic Example:

As a legal "person," can we deny Haliburton the right to keep and bear arms? Do they and should they have the right to maintain their own private defense force? It is my belief that the second ammendment precludes us from limiting the chosen armaments of any citizen. Should this be true for Exxon as well? Surely they do work in areas where a few surplus M60's or older 105mm Abrams would be useful?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But you're half right; I should probably elaborate. Nothing - and I mean nothing - good will ever happen in this country until campaign finance reform kicks in. Hence my calling him childish; what he said is so out of touch with reality that it borders on dissociation.

In the absolute, you are correct. In practice, money has not, cannot, and will never be separated from representative politics. To enact laws that attempt to do so may be noble, but is ultimately naive.

I'd prefer absolute transparency. If my guy in the first congressional here in the Old Dominion is a wholly owned subsidiary of Northrup Grumman*, I want to KNOW that before I cast my ballot. I may actually consider that a PLUS in assessing his candidacy. Since money and politics cannot be separated, we should focus on making everyone aware of what's going on -- a difficult but not entirely insoluble problem.

* To the best of my knowledge, Rep. Wittman is a fairly standard right-of-center GOP type with no known horrific vices or foibles, I am merely using this as a hypothetical example.

[Kralizec]

Hyperbolic Example:

As a legal "person," can we deny Haliburton the right to keep and bear arms? Do they and should they have the right to maintain their own private defense force? It is my belief that the second ammendment precludes us from limiting the chosen armaments of any citizen. Should this be true for Exxon as well? Surely they do work in areas where a few surplus M60's or older 105mm Abrams would be useful?

Maybe Haliburton should be allowed to run for office?

[Hosakawa Tito]

In the absolute, you are correct. In practice, money has not, cannot, and will never be separated from representative politics. To enact laws that attempt to do so may be noble, but is ultimately naive.

I'd prefer absolute transparency. If my guy in the first congressional here in the Old Dominion is a wholly owned subsidiary of Northrup Grumman*, I want to KNOW that before I cast my ballot. I may actually consider that a PLUS in assessing his candidacy. Since money and politics cannot be separated, we should focus on making everyone aware of what's going on -- a difficult but not entirely insoluble problem.

* To the best of my knowledge, Rep. Wittman is a fairly standard right-of-center GOP type with no known horrific vices or foibles, I am merely using this as a hypothetical example.

Media corporations already heavily influence the electoral process, and have for years. Even with this change corporations and unions cannot give money directly to the campaigns of federal candidates or to political parties. Sponsors of political ads still must disclose who paid for them.

Along with absolute transparency I'd also like to see an effective publicly funded campaign system. At least then the tendency to legislate in favor of who is funding your campaign would be more focused on the general welfare and not specific interest groups.

[drone]

Maybe Haliburton should be allowed to run for office?

Or forced to stand for jury duty, or be eligible for selective service...

In the absolute, you are correct. In practice, money has not, cannot, and will never be separated from representative politics. To enact laws that attempt to do so may be noble, but is ultimately naive.

Sad, but true. In my mind, the best way to limit campaign funding is to shorten the campaign. You can only blow through so much money in a couple of months, and an added bonus would be the elimination of electoral fatigue. Never going to happen, but I can dream...

[Gregoshi]

...or be eligible for selective service...

That would do wonders for the numbers of those in service. It would give new meaning to the phrase "A Division of Haliburton".

[jabarto]

Also, jbarto, it's considered bad form to name-call in the BR, unless you are very, very drunk, or can be very, very funny about it. (To be clear: CR called your comment "hyperbolic," but you called him "unflattering reference to previous poster." So you win the Unsportsmanlike Conduct Lapel Pin and Silly Hat. Never fear, it passes to another winner quickly.)

Sweet! Do I get to pick the color?

But yes, I suppose I can see the distinction there. I tender my apology to the offended parties and will take a break to cool off a bit.