Corporations and Campaign Finance

[MikeWaters]

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.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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.

I think there is quite a bit of overreaction to this decision. It isn't perfect, but it most definitely isn't anywhere close to "Dred Scott" of our day (what was Olberman thinking with that line?).

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.

[MikeWaters]

It means people have give you a poor reputation. Probably only a couple of people have "voted."

And nice try on changing the subject.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It means people have give you a poor reputation. Probably only a couple of people have "voted."

And nice try on changing the subject.

Go ahead and adjust your contrast now.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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.

Chuck Schumer called it one of the three or four worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. Talk about hyperbole.

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.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Chuck Schumer called it one of the three or four worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. Talk about hyperbole.

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.

"Actually following the Constitution."

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).

[MikeWaters]

Cali, make the case that the first amendment should not apply to corporations.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Cali, make the case that the first amendment should not apply to corporations.

Textualist argument: the first amendment doesn't say it applies to corporations. It says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Given that all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to either the US government, the states, or individuals, we can infer that corporations were not intended for inclusions (along with the fact that corporations in their form today didn't exist in 1791).

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?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Textualist argument: the first amendment doesn't say it applies to corporations. It says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Given that all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to either the US government, the states, or individuals, we can infer that corporations were not intended for inclusions (along with the fact that corporations in their form today didn't exist in 1791).

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?

so all of these interpretations would hold that a newspaper owned by a corporation does not have first amendment rights?

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.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

so all of these interpretations would hold that a newspaper owned by a corporation does not have first amendment rights?

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.

Perhaps. They could hold that media corporations should but not other corporations. Or they could hold that the individuals who publish for a newspaper have First Amendment rights which are protected and therefore there isn't a need to protect the "newspaper" itself. Protection of the individual who works for the newspaper is sufficient.