Ban on direct corporate spending on elections overturned

[Appa23]

Well corporations aren't people, aren't they considered separate "entities" and not people so they don't have the right to vote. So where does the first amendment apply if they aren't people.

You are confusing citizen's rights and person's rights. There are many people covered by the Constitution that are not citizens.

Voting belongs to the former. Bill of Rights stuff belongs to the latter. Both can be limited. (In the case of voting, taken away, such as with felony convictions.)

Well either way corporations aren't people so they don't have the same rights as people, just like animals.

To be technical, a corporation does not have to be person to have the freedom of speech. Rather, as the law of the land, the Constitution and its protections are applicable to all within its borders. As such, the Government is not allowed to abridge the freedom of speech. You will note that the First Amendment does not say, "freedom of speech of persons."

More to the point, let me pose a question. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of private property for public use, without just compensation. If the Bill of Rights only pertains to persons, and not coprorations, then can the United States simply seize all of the Wal-Marts in America?

[ten96lt]

You are confusing citizen's rights and person's rights. There are many people covered by the Constitution that are not citizens.

Voting belongs to the former. Bill of Rights stuff belongs to the latter. Both can be limited. (In the case of voting, taken away, such as with felony convictions.)

Well either way corporations aren't people so they don't have the same rights as people, just like animals.

To be technical, a corporation does not have to be person to have the freedom of speech. Rather, as the law of the land, applicable to all within its borders, the Government is not allowed to abridge the freedom of speech. You will note that the First Amendment does not say, "freedom of speech" of persons.

More to the point, let me pose a question. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of private property for public use, without just compensation. If the Bill of Rights only pertains to persons, and not coprorations, then can the United States simply seize all of the Wal-Marts in America?

Well I wouldn't complain if it was Wal-Mart The one issue I see with corporations making the ads is who makes the authority on who to side with? Corporations are owned by the shareholders and not all of the shareholders are going to agree with what decision is made in terms of picking a side, so why not just ban it outright to prevent that kind of controversy. Pretty soon now, you might have the board of directors or CEOs in a firestorm and risk losing their jobs simply because they decided to spend corporate dollars on advertising for a candidate even if the company is profiting.

[flockofseagulls104]

Well either way corporations aren't people so they don't have the same rights as people, just like animals.

To be technical, a corporation does not have to be person to have the freedom of speech. Rather, as the law of the land, applicable to all within its borders, the Government is not allowed to abridge the freedom of speech. You will note that the First Amendment does not say, "freedom of speech" of persons.

More to the point, let me pose a question. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of private property for public use, without just compensation. If the Bill of Rights only pertains to persons, and not coprorations, then can the United States simply seize all of the Wal-Marts in America?

Well I wouldn't complain if it was Wal-Mart The one issue I see with corporations making the ads is who makes the authority on who to side with? Corporations are owned by the shareholders and not all of the shareholders are going to agree with what decision is made in terms of picking a side, so why not just ban it outright to prevent that kind of controversy. Pretty soon now, you might have the board of directors or CEOs in a firestorm and risk losing their jobs simply because they decided to spend corporate dollars on advertising for a candidate even if the company is profiting.

It's not the government's business to regulate speech of any kind. Whether it's from individuals or groups. If someone makes a decision in a corporation to participate in the election in some way, then they take the risk of whatever consequences occur. The people who disagree with what they are doing also have the right to express their viewpoint, either in the form of speech or commerce. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS TO GRANT RIGHTS.

Give me a break. Walmart does not vote. The people who run Walmart vote. The people who are employed at Walmart also vote. All of them, either individually or as a group have the right to express their opinions, whether you like it or not. They were born iwth that right in this country. And neither Congress nor the President have the power to take that right away from them unless we are stupid or complacent enough to let them get away with doing it. I applaud what the Supreme Court finally did.

[Bob Juch]

You are confusing citizen's rights and person's rights. There are many people covered by the Constitution that are not citizens.

Voting belongs to the former. Bill of Rights stuff belongs to the latter. Both can be limited. (In the case of voting, taken away, such as with felony convictions.)

Well either way corporations aren't people so they don't have the same rights as people, just like animals.

To be technical, a corporation does not have to be person to have the freedom of speech. Rather, as the law of the land, the Constitution and its protections are applicable to all within its borders. As such, the Government is not allowed to abridge the freedom of speech. You will note that the First Amendment does not say, "freedom of speech of persons."

More to the point, let me pose a question. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of private property for public use, without just compensation. If the Bill of Rights only pertains to persons, and not coprorations, then can the United States simply seize all of the Wal-Marts in America?

Yes, they can. They'd have to compensate them though.

[Appa23]

Well either way corporations aren't people so they don't have the same rights as people, just like animals.

To be technical, a corporation does not have to be person to have the freedom of speech. Rather, as the law of the land, the Constitution and its protections are applicable to all within its borders. As such, the Government is not allowed to abridge the freedom of speech. You will note that the First Amendment does not say, "freedom of speech of persons."

More to the point, let me pose a question. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of private property for public use, without just compensation. If the Bill of Rights only pertains to persons, and not coprorations, then can the United States simply seize all of the Wal-Marts in America?

Yes, they can. They'd have to compensate them though.

That was my point. The need for compernsation is the same, whether it is the private property of a actual person or corporation.

[Appa23]

To be technical, a corporation does not have to be person to have the freedom of speech. Rather, as the law of the land, applicable to all within its borders, the Government is not allowed to abridge the freedom of speech. You will note that the First Amendment does not say, "freedom of speech" of persons.

More to the point, let me pose a question. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of private property for public use, without just compensation. If the Bill of Rights only pertains to persons, and not coprorations, then can the United States simply seize all of the Wal-Marts in America?

Well I wouldn't complain if it was Wal-Mart The one issue I see with corporations making the ads is who makes the authority on who to side with? Corporations are owned by the shareholders and not all of the shareholders are going to agree with what decision is made in terms of picking a side, so why not just ban it outright to prevent that kind of controversy. Pretty soon now, you might have the board of directors or CEOs in a firestorm and risk losing their jobs simply because they decided to spend corporate dollars on advertising for a candidate even if the company is profiting.

It's not the government's business to regulate speech of any kind. Whether it's from individuals or groups. If someone makes a decision in a corporation to participate in the election in some way, then they take the risk of whatever consequences occur. The people who disagree with what they are doing also have the right to express their viewpoint, either in the form of speech or commerce. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS TO GRANT RIGHTS.

Give me a break. Walmart does not vote. The people who run Walmart vote. The people who are employed at Walmart also vote. All of them, either individually or as a group have the right to express their opinions, whether you like it or not. They were born iwth that right in this country. And neither Congress nor the President have the power to take that right away from them unless we are stupid or complacent enough to let them get away with doing it. I applaud what the Supreme Court finally did.

Flock, I do have to correct that "they were with that right in this country." Those born outside of the country also have the same rights. These general rules/rights apply to everyone who is within the United States.

[Odyssey]

How I yearn for a cap to be placed on candidate campaign spending, period. It is obscene the amount of $ wasted on campaigns and it offends me greatly.

[flockofseagulls104]

Well I wouldn't complain if it was Wal-Mart The one issue I see with corporations making the ads is who makes the authority on who to side with? Corporations are owned by the shareholders and not all of the shareholders are going to agree with what decision is made in terms of picking a side, so why not just ban it outright to prevent that kind of controversy. Pretty soon now, you might have the board of directors or CEOs in a firestorm and risk losing their jobs simply because they decided to spend corporate dollars on advertising for a candidate even if the company is profiting.

It's not the government's business to regulate speech of any kind. Whether it's from individuals or groups. If someone makes a decision in a corporation to participate in the election in some way, then they take the risk of whatever consequences occur. The people who disagree with what they are doing also have the right to express their viewpoint, either in the form of speech or commerce. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS TO GRANT RIGHTS.

Give me a break. Walmart does not vote. The people who run Walmart vote. The people who are employed at Walmart also vote. All of them, either individually or as a group have the right to express their opinions, whether you like it or not. They were born iwth that right in this country. And neither Congress nor the President have the power to take that right away from them unless we are stupid or complacent enough to let them get away with doing it. I applaud what the Supreme Court finally did.

Flock, I do have to correct that "they were with that right in this country." Those born outside of the country also have the same rights. These general rules/rights apply to everyone who is within the United States.

I am not sure of what your point is, but if you are talking about illegal aliens, yes they have the right of free speech, but they do not have the same rights as legal citizens of this country, as they, by their illegal status, have broken our laws.

[silvercamaro]

To be technical, a corporation does not have to be person to have the freedom of speech. Rather, as the law of the land, the Constitution and its protections are applicable to all within its borders. As such, the Government is not allowed to abridge the freedom of speech. You will note that the First Amendment does not say, "freedom of speech of persons."

More to the point, let me pose a question. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of private property for public use, without just compensation. If the Bill of Rights only pertains to persons, and not coprorations, then can the United States simply seize all of the Wal-Marts in America?

Yes, they can. They'd have to compensate them though.

That was my point. The need for compernsation is the same, whether it is the private property of a actual person or corporation.

What compensation was given to the stockholders of General Motors? (That's a serious question, BTW. I was under the impression that they were pretty well screwed.)

[TheCalvinator24]

How I yearn for a cap to be placed on candidate campaign spending, period. It is obscene the amount of $ wasted on campaigns and it offends me greatly.

Campaign spending limits accomplish nothing other than further protecting incumbents.

[Bob78164]

What compensation was given to the stockholders of General Motors? (That's a serious question, BTW. I was under the impression that they were pretty well screwed.)

Probably none, but that's a different situation. I didn't pay attention to the details, but my general understanding is that the government didn't seize the company's assets. Rather, the company went into bankruptcy because it couldn't pay its debts, and the government picked up the pieces after the fact.

Such scenarios are not uncommon after a bankruptcy, though usually it's not the government that's picking up the pieces. But the bottom line is that the shareholders weren't screwed because of anything the government did. They were screwed because they owned shares of a company that owed more than its assets were worth. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

What compensation was given to the stockholders of General Motors? (That's a serious question, BTW. I was under the impression that they were pretty well screwed.)

And if the government hadn't bailed out GM and it went out of business they would have been just as screwed.

An analogy would be the government condemning a building as a health hazard (in which case it's not required to compensate the owner) as opposed to taking the building under the right of eminent domain (in which case it is required to compensate the owner).

[silverscreenselect]

They were screwed because they owned shares of a company that owed more than its assets were worth. --Bob

Stockholders own a portion of a company's equity, the difference between its assets and liabilities. If the company is insolvent, there's no equity. Instead of liquidating the company and paying the creditors (including the unions) a fraction of what they were owed, the court, at the government's behest, determined that this arrangement would be more beneficial to the creditors, who always have priority over stockholders. You may or may not agree with the government's action or the court's assessment, but there's no question that GM wasn't going to be able to ever pay the stockholders anything with its debt structure.

[danielh41]

Here is what the case boiled down to, and why it is a freedom of speech issue (and from the Washington Post):

When the Supreme Court first heard the case in March, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart, representing the FEC, was pulled into a discussion of an issue that took him down a slippery slope: If the movie were a book, would the government ban publishing the book if it mentioned a candidate for office within the election time frame?

Stewart said that it could.

"That's pretty incredible," Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said.

Then came questions about electronic devices such as the Kindle.

"If it has one name, one use of the candidate's name, it would be covered, correct?" Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked.

"That's correct," Stewart replied.

"It's a 500-page book, and at the end it says, 'And so vote for X,' the government could ban that?" Roberts asked.

Bossie said this was the argument that turned a majority of the bench against the FEC and in favor of Citizens United.


"That sent a chill down the Supreme Court," Bossie said. The argument became a "point of demarcation."

The entire article is posted here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 0012104871

[snomaim]

You are confusing citizen's rights and person's rights. There are many people covered by the Constitution that are not citizens.

Voting belongs to the former. Bill of Rights stuff belongs to the latter. Both can be limited. (In the case of voting, taken away, such as with felony convictions.)

Well either way corporations aren't people so they don't have the same rights as people, just like animals.

To be technical, a corporation does not have to be person to have the freedom of speech. Rather, as the law of the land, the Constitution and its protections are applicable to all within its borders. As such, the Government is not allowed to abridge the freedom of speech. You will note that the First Amendment does not say, "freedom of speech of persons."

More to the point, let me pose a question. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of private property for public use, without just compensation. If the Bill of Rights only pertains to persons, and not coprorations, then can the United States simply seize all of the Wal-Marts in America?

A corporation can actually be the record title holder of property. A corporation cannot actually speak. Holding that corporations have "speech rights" flies in the face of common sense. Holding that they have property rights does make sense.

[snomaim]

To be technical, a corporation does not have to be person to have the freedom of speech. Rather, as the law of the land, applicable to all within its borders, the Government is not allowed to abridge the freedom of speech. You will note that the First Amendment does not say, "freedom of speech" of persons.

More to the point, let me pose a question. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of private property for public use, without just compensation. If the Bill of Rights only pertains to persons, and not coprorations, then can the United States simply seize all of the Wal-Marts in America?

Well I wouldn't complain if it was Wal-Mart The one issue I see with corporations making the ads is who makes the authority on who to side with? Corporations are owned by the shareholders and not all of the shareholders are going to agree with what decision is made in terms of picking a side, so why not just ban it outright to prevent that kind of controversy. Pretty soon now, you might have the board of directors or CEOs in a firestorm and risk losing their jobs simply because they decided to spend corporate dollars on advertising for a candidate even if the company is profiting.

It's not the government's business to regulate speech of any kind. Whether it's from individuals or groups. If someone makes a decision in a corporation to participate in the election in some way, then they take the risk of whatever consequences occur. The people who disagree with what they are doing also have the right to express their viewpoint, either in the form of speech or commerce. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS TO GRANT RIGHTS.

Give me a break. Walmart does not vote. The people who run Walmart vote. The people who are employed at Walmart also vote. All of them, either individually or as a group have the right to express their opinions, whether you like it or not. They were born iwth that right in this country. And neither Congress nor the President have the power to take that right away from them unless we are stupid or complacent enough to let them get away with doing it. I applaud what the Supreme Court finally did.

Wal Mart does not vote. But WalMart sure can use its money and power to buy a lot of votes. The Supreme Court's decision ignores common sense and reality. The First Amendment was meant to protect people not intangible entities.

[wintergreen48]

A sad thought... maybe the politicians we have actually ARE the best politicians...

Hmm. "Actually ARE"????

I don't have that bad an opinion of Americans.
About your Supreme Court, though....
Who was the fifth idiot?

The usual suspects -- Kennedy wrote the opinion, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas (as to the principal issue), and Alito. I read the first few pages of the Stevens dissent. If accurate, the opinion appears to be a textbook case of judicial activism.

I'll probably have more to write tonight assuming I make time to read the opinions. --Bob

Something of interest: I assume that 'the usual suspects' means the right wing side of the Court. Interestingly enough, one of the amicus briefs filed in the case-- which urged the Court to make the ruling that it did in fact make-- came from... the ACLU.

Say what you will about those conservative whack jobs at the ACLU, they are at least consistent in their view of the First Amendment, taking the position that (1) government has no business interposing ANY restrictions on anyone's exercise of their right to free speech ('Congress shall pass no law...'), and (2) government has no business supporting/subsidizing anyone's specific exercise of their right to free speech (the 'establishment' clause).

But kind of a question that comes to mind for those who object to the Court's decision:

If, during the primaries, SSS had formed a group (consisting of himself at the time), called 'Obots for Hillary,' he could have done so, and he could have put every dime he has into ads and such in support of the Clinton candidacy. And no one would have cared, and the law (which the Supreme Court struck down) would not have applied. And if, during the primaries SSS, decided to exercise his First Amendment right of freedom of association and allow me to join him as a member of 'Obots for Hillary,' we together, as partners (not THAT sort of partner, not that there is anything wrong with that), could have done so, and could have put every dime we have into ads and such in support of the Clinton candidacy. And no one would have cared, and the law (which the Supreme Court struck down) would not have applied. BUT: if during the primaries SSS kicked me out of Obots for Hillary (because he saw that I was not drinking enough Kool Aid to be a sufficiently True Believer) and then incorporated 'Obots for Hillary' as 'Obots for Hillary, Inc.,' with himself as the sole shareholder, then all of a sudden, under the law (which the Supreme Court struck down) he would have been forbidden from supporting Hillary's candidacy, at least, he could not have done so through 'Obots for Hillary.' So why is it justified/necessary/appropriate in that third (incorporated) scenario, when it would not have been required in either the 'sole proprietorship' scenario (SSS by himself) or the 'partnership' scenario (SSS and me)?

[silverscreenselect]

So why is it justified/necessary/appropriate in that third (incorporated) scenario, when it would not have been required in either the 'sole proprietorship' scenario (SSS by himself) or the 'partnership' scenario (SSS and me)?

One simple reason it that neither you nor I are going to be around forever, so Obots for Hillary will disappear when we do. Obots for Hillary, Inc., will be around forever because the laws of this country allow corporations in most cases perpetual existence. In addition, limited liability laws allow Obots for Hillary, Inc., to accumulate funds far in excess of what of what Obots for Hillary could. You and I could be sued for slander or libel for going too far in our comments. By donating to Obots for Hillary, Inc., we are immune.

The law gives corporations the ability to amass and keep moneys far in excess of what individuals can. The law creates corporations and it can grant or limit them the rights they enjoy.

[jarnon]

I brought up this old thread because the Senate just voted in favor of a constitutional amendment that would supersede this Supreme Court decision. As Flock reminds us, this is the proper way to solve a constitutional problem. The proposed 28th Amendment says:

Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.

Section 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.

Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.

[Bob Juch]

I brought up this old thread because the Senate just voted in favor of a constitutional amendment that would supersede this Supreme Court decision. As Flock reminds us, this is the proper way to solve a constitutional problem. The proposed 28th Amendment says:

Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.

Section 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.

Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.

Oh I can see this making some lawyers very rich.

What happens when Federal and State laws are in conflict?

What's "reasonable"?

What is "freedom of the press"? Does it extend to websites and blogs?

[silverscreenselect]

I brought up this old thread because the Senate just voted in favor of a constitutional amendment that would supersede this Supreme Court decision.

This description is far from accurate. The Senate actually voted to take up debate on the issue (which requires 60 votes, under Senate rules), not to actually pass the amendment (which requires a 2/3 vote under the Constitution, as well as a 2/3 vote in the House and 3/4 of the states to ratify it). A number of Republicans voted in favor of debating the issue but are likely to vote against it on the merits. If for some reason it passes the Senate, it's highly unlikely the House will even allow it to come up for a vote (rules are highly different there).

Both the amendment and the Republican opposition to it are strictly a political show at this point. No one on either side really thinks this amendment has a chance to pass, and they are only jockeying to score points with the voters in November. It's no surprise the Democrats brought the issue up now or that they're renewing their push for a higher minimum wage now. They want to stake out their position on these issues for moderate voters and encourage their base to show up at the polls in two months.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/s ... n-spending

[jarnon]

Unfortunately, SSS was right. On the next procedural vote, all the Republicans voted no, and the amendment died.