|
01-26-2010, 03:43 AM | #1 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,368
|
Corporations and Campaign Finance
http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/...e-too?page=0,1
So it is essentially precedent that corporations have the rights of persons. But what the government argued is that they don't have first amendment rights. Well what about media corporations? Can Congress limit their expression? Yes, but they have been specifically exempted in legislation, the government argues. If a corporation were to publish a book, and refer to a candidate in that book, would that be illegal? Yes, it would be, the government argued. [these arguments I heard on a panel on NPR. The conservative KILLED the liberal dude, whose only argument was that this would ruin elections. Ok, maybe. But you are not actually making a legal argument. You are just advocating for the result you want. The liberal had no cogent reply about media companies and first amendment rights, it was comical.] What is really striking me as bizarre is how some liberals are referring to this as the Dred Scott decision of our day. Seems to me it is hardly the revolutionary position, and is hardly without precedent. The whole campaign law was stupid. It merely made corporations shuffle the money around with accounting, and didn't limit them. Now that the money doesn't have to be shuffled, liberals are crying foul. It is bizarre. Today, just a short time after this supposed "worst decision in 100 years", there is a realization among the left that they are going chicken little on this one. |
01-26-2010, 03:51 AM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
As an aside, I noticed that I continue to have a red flag for my participation here in my profile, I suppose as a warning to both of the other posters who frequent this site. Waters and Archaea, you have been warned- engage at your own peril. Ironically, many of the posters who left have green flags. I think my red flag gives me the unqualified right to moon any poster with a green flag at will. They may not see me mooning them, but now they will know that I am. If they adjust the contrast of their screen to full white, they will know what's on the other side of the internet tubes. |
|
01-26-2010, 03:54 AM | #3 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,368
|
It means people have give you a poor reputation. Probably only a couple of people have "voted."
And nice try on changing the subject. |
01-26-2010, 03:58 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
|
01-26-2010, 01:40 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
The funniest accusation I've seen about the ruling is that it's activist, and shows conservative hypocrisy on judicial activism. Heh. Only in the world of liberalism could actually following the Constitution be construed as activism.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
|
01-26-2010, 03:51 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Heh. Yeah- once again conservatives found an absolute, unquestionable truth in the text of the Constitution which is totally and plainly discernable to all who read it. How the liberals ever misread the First Amendment, which clearly says "corporations and all other entities have a guaranteed right to spend money on television ads in the days running up to an election because that is most certainly what constitutes "free speech"" is beyond me. The word "corporation" is mentioned no fewer than 2.6 million times in Article I alone, let alone in the amendments. So is "television" (how precient of the founders). |
|
01-26-2010, 03:57 PM | #7 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,368
|
Cali, make the case that the first amendment should not apply to corporations.
|
01-26-2010, 06:09 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Originalist argument: the founders didn't contemplate the first amendment would apply to corporations. See above. Policy argument: It doesn't make sense to say a corporation is a person under the Constitution. It isn't a person. It doesn't have a personality, it doesn't have beliefs, it is amoral. It is a legal fiction. What does it even mean to say a corporation is a person? To which individual within the corporation do the rights of the corporation flow? All of them? Some of them? If all of them, how is that reconciled with agency laws where only some individuals employed by the corporation are authorized to do things on behalf of the corporation? Do corporations get to pick which individuals within the corporate entity have the power to exercise the constitutional rights of the corporation? |
|
01-26-2010, 07:05 PM | #9 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,368
|
Quote:
What if the corporation is only owned by one person and has only one employee (the owner)? These interpretations would hold that individuals have free speech, but groups of people do not? Or only groups designated as corporations? If such a designation, why? I have a hard time buying that groups of people don't have free speech rights. |
|
01-26-2010, 09:03 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|