Yeah for Corporate Personhood!

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes, really. And as someone whio supports the free market, I expect you to agree with me that those who paid for their business through corruption, military force or outright theft are not really deserving of ownership.l

If we were talking about banana republics or the like such considerations would be important. In the US they're negligible. I'm not going to put footnotes full of clarifications and details for every remark, especially one like "property belongs to those who pay for it".

CR

[HoreTore]

If we were talking about banana republics or the like such considerations would be important. In the US they're negligible. I'm not going to put footnotes full of clarifications and details for every remark, especially one like "property belongs to those who pay for it".

CR

It was mainly aimed at my next-door neighbor, Russia....

And while it doesn't happen in Europe or the US, it is certainly done by our companies...

[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.

[Gregoshi]

I don't think money makes that much difference if one candidate is a nutter, but in a normal, battle-between-lesser-evils election, money will have a much stronger influence...except for the likes of us free thinkers here at the Org.

Edit: Oh, and on the whole corporate personhood thingy, I can see some merit in the arguments from the side that says this ruling is okay, but my gut tells my this is wrong regardless. The only consulation is in the distrubingly humourous (cynical?) thought that the corporations will be tossing away lots of money on politicians who are unable to get anything done anyway, so it really doesn't matter in the end.

[Vuk]

Now who said that Vuk was a partisan? :P Here is one issue where I strongly agree with Obama. (and gosh dang it, but I think it is the first!)

[Crazed Rabbit]

The New York Times investigates ... and finds evidence of corporate election influencing meager at best.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted in his opinion that no evidence was marshaled in 100,000 pages of legal briefs to show that unrestricted campaign money ever bought a lawmaker’s vote. And even after Congress further tightened the rules with the landmark McCain-Feingold law in 2002, banning hundreds of millions of dollars in unlimited contributions to the political parties, public trust in government fell to new lows, according to polls.

And what about the corporations that contributed so much of that money? A review of the biggest corporate donors found that their stock prices were unaffected after they stopped giving to the parties. The results suggest that those companies did not lose their influence and may have been giving “because they were shaken down by politicians,” said Nathaniel Persily, a professor at Columbia Law School who has studied the law’s impact.

“There is no evidence that stricter campaign finance rules reduce corruption or raise positive assessments of government,” said Kenneth Mayer, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “It seems like such an obvious relationship but it has proven impossible to prove.”

And another view on corporate personhood:

Well, no, because as my liberal friends all seem to be indignantly announcing in the aftermath of the Citizens United ruling, corporations aren’t really people! They’re creatures of statute, and “corporate personhood” is just a convenient legal fiction. Which is fair enough, but also seems to miss the point rather spectacularly. As a practical matter, it is hard to imagine any constitutional liberty that could not be reduced to a hollow joke if we refused to count as an infringement any regulation that nominally targeted only the corporate mechanism for coordinating its exercise.

Having dispensed with the repellent doctrine of corporate personhood, we can happily declare that journalists enjoy full freedom of the press … as long as they don’t plan on using the resources of the New York Times Company or Random House or Comcast, which as mere legal fictions can be barred from using their property to circulate unpatriotic ideas. You’re free to practice your religion without interference — but if it’s an unpopular one, well, let’s hope you don’t expect to send your kids to a religious school or build a church or something, because those tend to involve incorporating. A woman’s right to choose is sacrosanct, but since clinics and hospitals are mere corporations with no such protection, she’d better hope she knows a doctor who makes house calls. Fill in your own scenarios, it’s easy.

CR

[Lemur]

The NYT piece is reassuring. But the Cato/Sanchez piece ...

And another view on corporate personhood:

... is a bit of a roll in the rhetorical hay. Sanchez seems to be arguing (it's hard to tell, his prose is so purple) that as a practical matter we must accept corporate personhood. He then goes into a very strange hypothetical exercise in which journalists cannot use the resources of their newspapers because they are corporations, ignoring the very explicit "freedom of the press shall not be abridged" part of the Constitution.

He then waxes poetic about how nobody wants to give citizenship rights to Exxon or Nike, but we must, as a matter of practicality.

I'd respond to his argument if he were making one, rather than meditating from a lofty height on the foolishness of mortals. As it is, I'm just amazed he got paid to write this junk. Seems like the sort of Note to Peasants one would expect from the Thirteenth Duke of Goustenharborshireborough.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I don't agree with that, Lemur. The fact that the McCain-Feingold law exempted media companies shows just how stupid it was. Why can you allow GE, through NBC, to air views, while banning somebody like Boeing?

Another article, from a guy who may not like the results but agrees with the constitutional reasoning:

Thus, those who want to object to the Court's ruling need to do so on First Amendment grounds. Except to the extent that some constitutional rights give way to so-called "compelling state interests," that the Court's decision will produce "bad results" is not really an argument.

More specifically, it's often the case that banning certain kinds of speech would produce good outcomes, and conversely, allowing certain kinds of speech produces bad outcomes (that's true for, say, White Supremacist or neo-Nazi speech, or speech advocating violence against civilians). The First Amendment is not and never has been outcome-dependent; the Government is barred from restricting speech -- especially political speech -- no matter the good results that would result from the restrictions. That's the price we pay for having the liberty of free speech. And even on a utilitarian level, the long-term dangers of allowing the Government to restrict political speech invariably outweigh whatever benefits accrue from such restrictions.
...
But the speech restrictions struck down by Citizens United do not only apply to Exxon and Halliburton; they also apply to non-profit advocacy corporations, such as, say, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, as well as labor unions, which are genuinely burdened in their ability to express their views by these laws. I tend to take a more absolutist view of the First Amendment than many people, but laws which prohibit organized groups of people -- which is what corporations are -- from expressing political views goes right to the heart of free speech guarantees no matter how the First Amendment is understood. Does anyone doubt that the facts that gave rise to this case -- namely, the government's banning the release of a critical film about Hillary Clinton by Citizens United -- is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to avoid? And does anyone doubt that the First Amendment bars the government from restricting the speech of organizations composed of like-minded citizens who band together in corporate form to work for a particular cause?
...
As for the question of whether corporations possess "personhood," that's an interesting issue and, as I said, I'm very sympathetic to the argument that they do not, but the majority's ruling here did not really turn on that question. That's because the First Amendment does not only vest rights in "persons." It says nothing about "persons." It simply bans Congress from making any laws abridging freedom of speech.

And everyone's favorite expensive escort patron (Spitzer):

As an elected official who often tangled with wealthy corporations, I recognize that there is a superficial appeal in the prospect of being able to silence their political voices. Of course that is precisely why the First Amendment protects them and why I find myself sympathetic to the First Amendment absolutists in this case. What distinguishes what Citizens United did and what Bill O'Reilly on Fox News -- Rachel Maddow on MSNBC -- does every day? Fox and MSNBC are corporations bombarding the airwaves with political rhetoric, from the right and left, that is as close to "electioneering communications" as anything I can imagine. The McCain-Feingold statute excluded "media companies" from its limitations, a distinction that makes no logical sense. The constitutionality of Citizens United's speech should have nothing to do with what else may or may not go on at the corporation it is part of.

And finally, on the money and free speech issue:

As Justice Stevens said in 2000, "money isn't speech. It is property." I find it hard to argue differently.

I don't find these even plausible, let alone persuasive. Anyone who believes that would have to say that there's no First Amendment problem with any law that restricts the spending of money for political purposes, such as:

"It shall be illegal for anyone to spend money to criticize laws enacted by the Congress; all citizens shall still be free to express their views on such laws, provided no money is spent;" or

"It shall be illegal for anyone to spend money advocating Constitutional rights for accused terrorists; all citizens shall still be free to express their views on such matters, provided no money is spent"; or

"It shall be illegal for anyone to spend money promoting a candidate not registered with either the Democratic or Republican Party; all citizens shall still be free to advocate for such candidates, provided no money is spent."

Anyone who actually believes that "money is not speech" would have to believe that such laws are necessarily permitted by the First Amendment (since they merely restrict the expenditure of money, which is not speech).

Do you actually believe that? I don't even find that argument sufficiently coherent to warrant much discussion.

It would be like saying: "No person shall be permitted to use a megaphone or television outlet to advocate liberal views -- there's no First Amendment problem: megaphones and television outlets are just 'property, not speech'."

This is a very good court decision and a victory for free speech in America.

CR

[jabarto]

This is a very good court decision and a victory for free speech in America.

CR

How can you say this with a straight face? This is the most pro-business legislation in the history of human governance; it benefits no one except for the corporations - more specifically, the people heading them.

I also find it rather amusing that you're hailing this as a constitutional victory when it's the polar opposite of that; corporations now have literal carte blanche to subvert the democratic process as much as they damn well please. They can fill every public office with whomever will be loyal to them and their interests.

Seriously, stop with the legality argument and just think about the ramifications of this decision for a moment.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The rule of law and our constitution prohibits the government from denying rights to people or groups just because it would be for the "common good".

Whatever you say about corporate advertising for politicians, this is a constitutional victory. No longer can the government impose criminal sanctions on advocacy groups like the Sierra Club for publishing a book about national forests and telling readers to vote against a candidate.

As for the ramifications; I've already posted studies showing the doom-saying is way overblown.

But even if it wasn't; it's called free speech. Deal with it.

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

There is absolutely no reason that a corporation, non-profit, or union should be allowed to give money directly to political parties. There is also absolutely no reason that a corporation, non-profit, or union shouldn't be able to make independent statements stating their own political views.

[Kralizec]

Crazed Rabbit, I understand what you're saying, but aren't you bothered about commercial companies donating money to certain candidates merely because said candidate is expected to go easy on those companies in the fiscal/economic sense?

Yes, a commercial corporation is basically a group of shareholders who've congregated. In order to earn money. Now I suppose technically that said corporation could earn more money by investing in a certain politician. But if I buy shares in a company, that doesn't mean I'm okay with said company using the money to support a politician I might dispise because that indirectly produces more dividend. That makes the whole "congregation of citizens" argument kind of moot

[a completely inoffensive name]

The rule of law and our constitution prohibits the government from denying rights to people or groups just because it would be for the "common good".

That is completely wrong, and you have no idea what you are talking about. For someone who talks about the Constitution you have little understanding of it.

People have their rights denied everyday to protect the common good, the purpose of the government is to protect its people from outside and within from each other. Freedom without check is anarchy. You cannot run into a movie theater and scream fire because that puts people into danger, even though your first amendment right is the ability to say what you want when you want to.

Stop pretending this is a win for free speech and the Constitution and just come out that you would want to live under a corporations rule then a governments rule. I'm not saying that's a bad thing you believe that, I just want you to stop lying to everyone.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted in his opinion that no evidence was marshaled in 100,000 pages of legal briefs to show that unrestricted campaign money ever bought a lawmaker’s vote. And even after Congress further tightened the rules with the landmark McCain-Feingold law in 2002, banning hundreds of millions of dollars in unlimited contributions to the political parties, public trust in government fell to new lows, according to polls.

And what about the corporations that contributed so much of that money? A review of the biggest corporate donors found that their stock prices were unaffected after they stopped giving to the parties. The results suggest that those companies did not lose their influence and may have been giving “because they were shaken down by politicians,” said Nathaniel Persily, a professor at Columbia Law School who has studied the law’s impact.

“There is no evidence that stricter campaign finance rules reduce corruption or raise positive assessments of government,” said Kenneth Mayer, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “It seems like such an obvious relationship but it has proven impossible to prove.”

I admit I didn't read the whole article. But this seems a bit shaky. It says:

1) They found no evidence of votes being bought. Not of amendments not being proposed, bills being written a certain way, bills not being voted on in the first place, etc.
2) Public trust fell in government fell to new lows during the bush administration. Ahahaha.
3) You can't prove it using evidence from the stock market.
4) There is no evidence of people doing corrupt things.

Oh well, in many ways I agree. The unions will donate big money to the democrats even if they don't do jack for them, same with corporations. The fact that the McCain-Feingold bill passed in the first place is proof that democracy won't be demolished.

[Crazed Rabbit]

That is completely wrong, and you have no idea what you are talking about. For someone who talks about the Constitution you have little understanding of it.

People have their rights denied everyday to protect the common good, the purpose of the government is to protect its people from outside and within from each other. Freedom without check is anarchy. You cannot run into a movie theater and scream fire because that puts people into danger, even though your first amendment right is the ability to say what you want when you want to.

Stop pretending this is a win for free speech and the Constitution and just come out that you would want to live under a corporations rule then a governments rule. I'm not saying that's a bad thing you believe that, I just want you to stop lying to everyone.

Second time in as many days that I get trolled. What's up with that?

Crazed Rabbit, I understand what you're saying, but aren't you bothered about commercial companies donating money to certain candidates merely because said candidate is expected to go easy on those companies in the fiscal/economic sense?

I am certainly bothered by the possibility of corporations buying influence. But that sort of rent seeking already happens, and I think it's easier to stop that sort of thing by reducing regulations and not adding new ones unless they are necessary, since that's often how politicians give favors to certain businesses. Increased transparency would also help.

CR

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I disagree that it was a "good" decision. I do think it was the correct decision. This is a classic supreme court "veto" of a poorly framed legislative effort. Please note, I said poorly "framed," not poorly intended. I think most of us would agree that corporate "persons" may have undue influence. The means of curbing or channeling that influence, however, must meet the mandates of the Constitution.

[CrossLOPER]

I disagree that it was a "good" decision. I do think it was the correct decision. This is a classic supreme court "veto" of a poorly framed legislative effort. Please note, I said poorly "framed," not poorly intended. I think most of us would agree that corporate "persons" may have undue influence. The means of curbing or channeling that influence, however, must meet the mandates of the Constitution.

So you think that this decision was for the greater good? That's somewhat nebulous.

[Lemur]

File under "Well That Didn't Take Long": Saudis reported to begin lobbying immediately through corporate organs. So not only do we have a Kenyan muslin for president, we'll have a congress lubricated with Saudi oil money. Lovely.

Congressional Democrats, led by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), are drafting legislation to curb the influence of foreign corporations and foreign governments following the decision. [...] lobbyists representing foreign corporations are already organizing to defeat such a proposal. The Organization for International Investment, a trade group representing foreign banks, oil companies, and other foreign corporations operating in the United States, “lashed out” at Van Hollen’s proposals. “The concern over foreign influence in our political system is a red herring,” said Nancy McLernon, the head of OII. [...]

Saudi Arabian-owned subsidiaries operating in the United States can now spend unlimited amounts advocating the defeat of candidates who support clean energy legislation.

Well, I guess as long as your politics line up with the Kingdom's that all well and good.

[Strike For The South]

Oh wow the politicians are screwing us over and lining up with big buisness.

I'm shocked, horrified, and appalled.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The fact some of you still feign outrage at this stuff is truly remarkable, in 4 years here I've gone from starry eyed idealist to cynic

[CrossLOPER]

Saudis reported to begin lobbying immediately

That is incredibly unfortunate and somewhat bitterly ironic.

Strike, I stopped being surprised around 2005.

[ICantSpellDawg]

We have a right to assemble and a right to free speech. Corporations have united interests that are profoundly affected by the consequences of politics. Change laws to ensure corporate interests are the interest of the corporate body rather than shadowy and opaque deals and keep an eye on the seeds planted here, making sure the weeds don't strangle the fruits.

[CrossLOPER]

We have a right to assemble and a right to free speech. Corporations have united interests that are profoundly affected by the consequences of politics. Change laws to ensure corporate interests are the interest of the corporate body rather than shadowy and opaque deals and keep an eye on the seeds planted here, making sure the weeds don't strangle the fruits.

This could also lead to more corruption with sizable amounts of "funding" finding more lubricated paths as a result of this policy of openness. If corporations want to dump their cash, that's just great! Just make sure the effect is as limited as possible.

[Aemilius Paulus]

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

While this post of Lemur may have been the fourth one in a thread with already four pages, I do feel obliged to point out that Mr. Mussolini never said that. A wildly popular quotation it is in political forms, but that alone does not guarantee its validity. For that matter, most Stalin quotes are fake as well.

[Xiahou]

Three reasons not to sweat the Citizens United ruling.
A short video from Reason.tv. I think it puts a little perspective on the ruling.

[CountArach]

The Onion, as always is spot on:

Supreme Court Allows Corporations To Run For Political Office
WASHINGTON—In a landmark decision that overturned decades of legal precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday to remove all restrictions that had previously barred corporations from holding public office. "This is an unfair, ill-advised, and tragic mistake," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said before boarding a flight to Arizona in response to primary poll numbers that show him trailing the Phoenix-based company PetSmart by a double-digit margin. "Despite the deep discounts and exciting promotions that they may be able to offer, these huge, soulless entities are not capable of truly serving the American people's—or their pet's—needs." Corporate attack ads have already begun to hit the airwaves in New York, where a new Pepsi commercial set to a catchy modern remix of Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'" blasts incumbent governor David Paterson as "unrefreshing" and urges New Yorkers to "taste the choice of a new generation this Nov. 2."

[Major Robert Dump]

Oh look, e can talk the talk but, in the end, they take the money too:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/democr...ory?id=9777742

As I said before, either ban all of it or none of it. Banning corporate money 60 days from the election is retarded. Pls don't tell Sarah I said that!