The ruling does not give corporations a special class of rights

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

There have been about a hundred threads about incorporating and incorporation that suffer under the erroneous view that corporations are now granted a special class of political activity.

To argue against the SCOTUS decision intelligently it is best to know what it actually says or does.

Say you win the power-ball lottery tomorrow. You have $10 million. You decide to hire a video company to cut a TV ad saying that Michelle Bachman is a fucking loon and everyone should vote for her opponent. You then pay to place your ad in Bachman's district.

You can do that now, post-ruling.

A corporation can also do that. A non-profit can do that. Ironically, Osama Bin Laden can probably do that--not that he would. (He's probably okay with Bachman.)

Being a corporation does not help you any in that scenario, legally.

Of course, in the real world corporations have a lot of money and you do not. You are probably not going to win the power-ball. And that's a practical real world political problem.

But there is not a special new legal category of corporate spending. Any person or group can do the same... if they have the $$$.

So there is no specific benefit to incorporation in terms of ability to do candidate advocacy.

(Tweety was confused about this also. He seemed surprised to find out that anyone with the $$$ can now run their own specific campaign ads, and that being incorporated has no special status.)

[scheming daemons]

1. It's broader than that.... the court basically ruled that government can't curb their speech

...because they are protected by the first amendment.


That's the travesty here.... that the SCOTUS decided that first amendment protection extend to NON-LIVING entities.


The founders CLEARLY wrote the Bill of Rights to define and protect the rights of INDIVIDUALS.


They simply do NOT apply to non-human entities.



The court used the first amendment to protect the free speech rights of an artificial entity.

[Unvanguard]

4. Corporations have had First Amendment rights for a long time.

And it is at least sometimes a good thing. Should the New York Times have the right to free speech?

[fascisthunter]

5. um... they are the Press... very different thing there

wow

[Unvanguard]

15. Right. But it is still a non-human entity,

one that we (presumably) agree merits free speech rights.

So clearly you do not in fact believe that the First Amendment only protects individuals in the sense that no association of individuals can count.

Certainly it does not follow that General Motors has the same free speech interests as the New York Times. But to point this out requires an argument better than "the First Amendment protects only individuals." This is really not a corporate personhood issue.

[surrealAmerican]

38. Oddly enough, freedom of the press ...

... is also, separately addressed in the first amendment. It's as if they knew that just guaranteeing "freedom of speech" would not be enough to insure "freedom of the press".

[Unvanguard]

43. That interpretation is questionable.

It would be just as easy to interpret it as, say, protecting the right to speak and also the right to publish. More to the point, the Supreme Court does not regard the scope of freedom of speech to be reliant on the literal meanings of the words of the First Amendment, or even the "intentions" in a narrow sense of the Framers. Scalia and Thomas may, but it should not be news to anyone that they are hypocrites: all you need for that, and far more blatantly than in this case, is Bush v. Gore...

[NoNothing]

30. How about the Fourth Amendment

Should it be Constitutional to conduct warrantless searches of the NYT offices?

[last1standing]

82. Does no one own the NYT?

Re-read that amendment then come back and ask that question.

[NoNothing]

89. The NYT is controlled by a collective of shareholders

But it owns itself. The offices are the legal property of the NYT and not any individual person.

[scheming daemons]

6. The New York Times, as an entity, does not have free speech.. it's employees, individually, do

Just like the CEO of a corporation has free speech rights.... but the corporation as an entity, does not.


...or should not, if the original intent of the framers is followed (something conservatives always SAY they are for).

[Learning Nomad]

11. I assume this post is sarcasm.

[Unvanguard]

16. So the New York Times could be barred from publishing something by government censors?

No free speech issue there?

[last1standing]

83. The NYT corporation has no voice to silence.

The reporters, journalists, columnists and editors do, and they are real human beings. So no, the government can't censor the NYT.

[Unvanguard]

93. That's silly. By that logic, corporate speech can't be restricted either,

because to do so is to restrict the speech of the CEO or of whoever it is who buys or makes the ad.

[Orangepeel]

59. .

.

[last1standing]

81. The New York Times, Inc. should not have the right to free speech.

Its reporters, columnists and editors should. They are the press, not the corporate entity.

I find it very interesting that we, as a society, have gotten to a point where this is a difficult concept.

[Unvanguard]

94. Its "reporters, columnists, and editors" are operating under its purview and at its discretion.

The corporation hires them, the corporation publishes them. That argument would work if a New York Times reporter entirely separately decided to join a political rally; it does not in the context of dealing with what such a reporter writes for the New York Times corporation in a paper published by that corporation.

[Learning Nomad]

7. I agree. Newspapers should not have freedom of speech.

[creeksneakers2]

87. Are you serious?

[RB TexLa]

29. Democratic Underground claimed rights when the government wanted to know names of a couple of

members. Should the government also be free to search corporate or company offices anytime they please. This silliness about "corporate personhood" is beyond stupid.

[alberg]

44. Corporations are immortal beings that exist among us that now have the same legal rights as humans.

The point your making is the essence of what the problem is. The status of Corporations was not changed by the SC ruling, personhood was (incorrectly) established by court decision over 100 years ago. What the SC decision did was remove legal restraints that had been in place to limit how much influence Corporations could directly wield over our democratic processes. As citizens, we are not able to compete in the public sector with beings who 1.)will never die - they are not constrained, as the rest of use our by a finite human life span and 2.) have the potential to amass and utilize levels of wealth (power) that is beyond the reach of ordinary citizens. The combination of immortality and unlimited wealth spells the end of Democracy as we have up till now understood it. This is why it is critical that this decision be reversed.

[FormerDittoHead]

48. Another GLARING ERROR in the OP's premise... It's: Who CONTROLS the corp's while WE invest in them.

If I was a rich guy, yes, I could spend MY money as I would like.

The problem is that now, I could be a rich guy CONTROLLING a corporation that has YOUR money invested in it.

If you own stocks or corporate bonds in any form (mutual funds, for example) this will be the case.

The person running that corporation could then then take (pause for drama) *Y*O*U*R* money and spend it supporting Republicans.

THAT'S THE BIG DIFFERENCE.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

51. Aw jeez... you wouldn't know the OP's premise if it bit you on the butt

READ... don't fantasize about what you wish things said, actually READ them.

Nothing in the OP even vaguely touches on your objection.

The OP says what it says. If you want to argue with yourself or God or what some other guy said that's fine but don't drag the OP (that you didn't even seem to read) into it.

[FormerDittoHead]

86. You're right. It's not what I read, it's what I DIDN'T read.

I do respect your wanting to focus on a certain aspect of the situation.

I've done that myself and others get carried away, so I apologize for doing that very thing.

And I should also say I agree that you're right to clear up what the decision did NOT do.

[FreakinDJ]

2. Why should Corporations have MORE rights the average Americans

The Corporation is a Entity. The Entity is comprised of 1 or more persons.

"Does that person not have unfettered right to political speech"

So why therefore should a select group of 1 or more persons (those that comprise the entity of the corporation) have More Rights, Twice the Right of the Person to voice his Right to Freedom of Speech. First as a Person and Secondly as a Corporation

Riddle me that........

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. You don't pose a question to answer

Your question is like saying that since Joe can write a book and Jane can write a book that between them they have twice as many rights as I do.

It makes no sense... rights are not arithmetically cumulative.

Are people who write more than one book hogging everyone else's rights? (Damn you Steven King!)

[FreakinDJ]

12. In this case Joe and Jane can write 2 books to my 1

First as a Person and secondly as a Corporation

I'm just a person

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. Okay... you have $100. Jane has $200.

Jane can buy twice as many newspaper ads as you can.

The right involved is the right to place newspaper ads, not the right to have $200.

I am not saying whether there should or should not be a right to have $200... just that it does not currently exist.

[FreakinDJ]

31. Jane has $100 of Free Speech and Jane's Corp has $100 of Free Speech

and I (the person) has $100 of Free Speech

The ARGUMENT BEING..........

If I TAKE AWAY Jane's Corporation's $100 worth of Free Speech have I limited Jane's $100 Worth of Free Speech?

ABSOLUTELY NOT.........

Jane STILL has her $100 dollars worth of Free Speech. Additionally Jane as a part of the Corporate Entity has the ability "if not Full Control" to increase her portion of Free Speech by directing the Corporation to give her an additional $100 of Free Speech - although at that point "It Would be then Subject to the SAME rate of Taxation as My $100 worth of Free Speech"

Riddle me that Bro........

[iceman66]

13. The court ruled that money = speech,

and corporations in general have a whole lot more money than individuals.

For all practical purposes it has been that way for a long time. This ruling just made it official.

[Unvanguard]

10. They have the right to exercise free speech through their property.

Just as everyone else does. It's just that their property happens to include a corporation.

This part of the ruling is, at least to me, not at all objectionable--indeed, it is long-standing. What is more deeply problematic is that the majority opinion saw only this point of principle, and effectively ignored, or disingenuously dismissed, every other consideration. The fact of the matter is that whatever genuine free speech interests corporations have can be expressed through PACs.

[FreakinDJ]

14. Should "Property" have "Constitutional Rights"

The Constitution grants "Rights" to Persons, as in People, as in "We the People"

[Unvanguard]

20. Not property, no. Individuals who own property, yes.

To exercise free speech, we all inevitably use property. For an obvious example, right now I am presently using the computer I own to exercise my free speech--and I am doing so on a website that is someone else's property. If the government banned me from using computers to express myself, or banned the DU administrators from using their servers to host a political discussion forum, that would plainly be a violation of free speech. Similarly, to ban the use of property held in corporate form from engaging in political expression impairs First Amendment rights. I agree with the dissent in Citizens United that there are compelling government interests at stake here that justify this impairment. But an impairment it remains.

[FreakinDJ]

35. The Ruling relied on Corporations being "Persons"

It's like saying Your Computer has the RIGHT to Send out Viruses that you as a person are not responsible for It very well may and has been known to happen, but should the IP provider be allowed to Block or Restrict your computer's access to the internet to prevent harm to the servers or recipients of the Virus ridden Email YOUR computer is sending out

The prior existing laws limited Corporations from Free Speech

Not the people who make up the Entity of the Corporation (as in board of Trustees) but the Corporate Entity itself.

Nothing in the laws deterred a Corporate Board member, or CEO, from excessing his/her Right to Free Speech as a person.

The LAW as defined by this Supreme Court "recognizes that A CORPORATE ENTITY has the same Guarantee of Constitutional Rights of a Person"

NOTHING Infringed upon any board member, CEO, or Trusty of said Corporation from FULLY excessing THEIR Right to Free Speech

[Unvanguard]

41. The ruling relied on the fact that corporations are associations of persons.

Which they are. And if all those persons have free speech rights, then restricting their right to use their property to express themselves is actually restricting their individual right to free expression.

Justifiably so, in this case. But it requires justification.

[FreakinDJ]

45. Actually - Your Wrong..... You need to read Citizen's United Brief

Because Citizen United’s narrower arguments are not sustainable, this Court must, in an exercise of its judicial responsibility, consider §441b’s facial validity. Any other course would prolong the substantial, nationwide chilling effect caused by §441b’s corporate expenditure ban.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html

Nothing in the Law deterred a PERSON from excessing their inalienable Right to Free Speech

Further more the FEC law "Restricted Corporate Expenditures" NOT the Expenditures of People

Is a Corporation a Person?
Riddle me that Bro..............

[Unvanguard]

47. Um, I read the opinion on Thursday after it was released.

I'm not sure how it's supposed to show that my argument in my earlier post is wrong.

Edit: If you actually read the majority opinion, you'll note that it refers to corporations as associations of individuals or of citizens many times, but actually does not refer to them as "persons" in their own right.

[FreakinDJ]

49. The FEC laws did not restrict "Individuals"

and the Brief expressly addressed the FEC Laws as they applied to Corporations.

So truth be known - any one of those individuals who formed the Corporation ie: Citizens United, could have FREELY exercised the Existing Freedom of Speech and payed to air the infomercial

Of course then they would not have had the luxuries afforded them by Corporate Protections brought on by Personal Bankruptcy once HUGE judgments and liabilities from Civil Liable Suits are handed down

So what was the intended purpose of forming the Corporation "Citizens United".....

[NoNothing]

52. Consider the following

10 people with $100 want to run a television commercial supporting candidate X. But commercials cost at least $500. That means none of those 10 people will be able to run a commercial. But collectively, they could afford two commercials. So...they decide they want to collectively pool their resources, with rules set up to prevent any one person from exploiting or being exploited by the rest, and requiring voting on the exact content of the commercials. So they form...a corporation, establish its rules, put their money into it, and run their ads.

But you're saying, they shouldn't be able to do that; that only the rich guy in town who has lots of money should be able to buy those thousand-dollar commercials and everyone else just has to run a bunch of classified ads.

[Orangepeel]

64. they don't have to form a corporation to do that. They were free to do that before the ruling

A group of people were free to do that before (and after) the ruling.

[NoNothing]

66. Not as a group

They would have to all give their money to one person and trust them to do the right thing.

[FreakinDJ]

67. No just shielded by Corporate Laws

that is what this ruling really accomplishes for the RATpubliCONs

[Unvanguard]

72. Yes as a group. They could form a PAC.

And non-profit corporations aimed at policy advocacy, that do not accept donations from corporations, were already excepted before this court case. Citizens United used corporate money; that was why the exemption didn't apply to them.

[Orangepeel]

73. No.

Acting as a Group

If you and other individuals act together as a group to conduct activities to influence a Federal election, the group may become a "political committee." In general, a group that raises or spends over $1,000 per year to influence Federal elections must register, keep records on financial transactions and file reports on the committee's activities.

If you are interested in forming a group to participate in Federal elections and anticipate raising or spending more that $1,000 during a calendar year, you should write or phone the Commission and request materials to register the group as a political committee.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml#group


You could have done this before without forming a corporation. As long as you remained independent from the candidate's campaign, the group could spend as much as it wanted and still advocate for or against a candidate.

[NoNothing]

79. Granted in this hypothetical

Because the cash amounts are so small. With real-life dollar values, you'd bump up against contribution limits pretty quickly.

[Orangepeel]

90. No, amounts were and are unlimited

Individuals aren't going to have the money that a large corporation has. But the point remains that individuals and groups of individuals had and have the right to spend unlimited amounts of money in support of or opposition to a candidate, as long as they remain independent of the candidate's campaign.

[Unvanguard]

92. Not contributions to PACs and the like, no.

Independent expenditures BY PACs (or individuals), yes. But I don't think that was the poster's point.

[Orangepeel]

95. I lost the poster's point a while ago, but I thought it was that individuals had to incorporate

in order to pool their money. That is and was incorrect. As long as they remain independent (and aren't trying to be tax exempt, I suppose), a group of individuals could always pool their money and advertise on behalf of a candidate.

[Unvanguard]

97. The point (as I understood it) was that there were strict monetary limits to that.

The amount of money you can donate to PACs each election cycle is capped, so your capacity to pool capital is severely limited. Obviously, however, there is no cap in the amount of money you can invest in a corporation.

[Unvanguard]

65. It had nothing to do with personal liability for lawsuits, most probably.

Rather, it was a way to effectively combine the money of large numbers of individual donors, none of whom could have funded Citizens United's activities on their own.

[FreakinDJ]

70. But that is the End Result of the ruling

I can form a corporation - slander and liable any candidate I please, bankrupt the corporation running adds and when they "Sue the Corporation for Damages and Liable" - I as an individual am "Protected" from losing my Personal Assets.

I can then desolve that Corporation - walk away - and do it all over again

<on edit>

Care to venture a guess how many of the CEOs who bankrupted Wall St Financials are now working for NEW Corporations with little or No monitary consequences.....

(crickets chirping......)

[Unvanguard]

74. If you can do that legally now, you could do it legally before, too.

The overturned restriction merely concerned advertisements close to an election. Your attack on a particular feature of the corporate form was not at issue in the case.

[FreakinDJ]

75. At least before "Slanderous Attack Adds" could not be run

so close to the date of an election as not to allow a Candidate time to reply

That is what Citizens United fought for - Election Eve, slanderous attack adds

A Noble Cause indeed

[Orangepeel]

91. Losing the time restrictions is worse than the money restrictions, IMO n/t

[creeksneakers2]

88. That's the wrong way to look at it.

People have rights. Property doesn't. If your house can't be searched, does that mean your house has rights? Of course not. The owner does. The same with the corporation. The rights are those of the owners, not the entity. Groups have free speech rights just like individuals. Whether they are organized around an environmental movement or a for-profit venture doesn't change the fact that those individuals have a right to speak.

If an entity created by a group doesn't have free speech rights, then doesn't the Democratic Party or the ACLU also not have rights?

[ctaylors6]

24. in one way, individuals have more rights than corporations

Corporations are still banned from contributing directly to political campaigns.

Just in case that makes anyone feel better.

[treestar]

57. No matter how much $$ they put into it, corporations have no vote

the vote is the important thing. And not all voters operate 100% on brainwashing by the corporate media.

[fascisthunter]

3. sorry, but I'm not cool with inequal representation

and that's what this is really about. I'm a bit surprised anyone would on DU. This harms a democracy...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. Is that a response to the OP or a general comment?

The OP doesn't defend anything. It states a series of facts.

[fascisthunter]

23. I Disagreed with the Premise that they don't get special rights

that's bullshit... this codifies their ability to make my vote worth shit, due to their ability to use more resources than most individuals to bribe politicans. If that isn't considered a special right by your standards there is going to be no way of carrying anymore of a conversation. I will not waste my time with those who espouse undemocratic principles.... I have given up on intellectual dishonesty.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

25. If you cannot read or think then why write?

The OP espouses nothing. The OP does not defend the decision is any aspect.

That's very plain.

The OP is explaining something real and independent of what you or I think about it, not offering a value judgment.

If you don't care to use words like "rights" in the framework of American constitutional theory and law then you have that right.

But it prevents any discussion of law if everyone has their novel personal definitions of legal terms.

[Earth_First]

17. Fuck it doesn't...

While it may not be 'legally' a seperate statute that defines a new class of regulations; from the Main Street v. K Street standpoint, the definition of a new "class" couldn't be any clearer...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. We cannot coherently discuss SCOTUS rulings by first throwing out the concept of "legally"

Everything SCOTUS does is couched in terms of "legally."

No way around that.

[randr]

18. What is to prevent a political interest group

from simply calling up a candidate and threatening to spend massive amounts to unseat them if they do not comply with the groups wishes?
Does this ruling not throw out the laws against blackmail?

[cali]

22. huh? corporations can now give unlimited funds to a candidate. An individual

is limited to $2400 for each federal election. Am I wrong?

[NoNothing]

26. Yes, you are wrong!

This is about independent expenditures. The campaign contribution prohibition is STILL IN PLACE.

I share the OP's wish that people would take the time to really understand the issues here.

[dsc]

27. yes you are wrong

Corporations and labor unions are still banned from giving any money at all to political parties or candidates. What they are now permitted to do is spend an unlimited amount of money on ads in races something individuals can also do.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

28. It's not about direct contributions

It affects the ability of entities to conduct their own campaigns. Some billionaire can flood the airwaves with his own ads saying "Vote for Palin."

Before he could not.

That is a large "in kind" contribution, just as the swiftboaters were making large de facto contributions to Bush by doing the swiftboat thing with their own money.

When people say corporations can now donate a $ zillion to a campaign thy mean in effect, not formally.

[Warren Stupidity]

84. Uh - and there is the problem.

How is it possible that direct contributions by corporations can remain prohibited under the theory generated out of whole cloth by the fascist Roberts Court?

In fact, how can any of the special regulations of corporations remain intact, given this ruling?

"The majority is deeply wrong on the law. Most wrongheaded of all is its insistence that corporations are just like people and entitled to the same First Amendment rights. It is an odd claim since companies are creations of the state and exist to make money. They are given special privileges, including different tax rates, to do just that. It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs have the same right to spend monety on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate."

Those radical naive left wing loons at the NYT.

Washington is awash in a tsunami of corporate corruption and this ruling just tore down another barrier to complete control by the global corporate elites. Do you get that?

[blogslut]

32. What I would like to see now

Is a buttressing up of disclaimer (and PAC) rules per McCain/Feingold

I understand that if and when these corporations buy these ads, they are required by law to post a disclaimer stating who has paid for the ad. However, in reference to PACs, those disclaimers disclosed little because the members of the PACs hid behind the name of the PAC. I want congress to pass legislation that forces PACs to publicly disclose the names of the people/entities that donate to them in any amount over $2400.00. As well, I want the legislation to insure that if say, EXXON creates and airs a political ad, the disclaimer explicitly states the ad is from EXXON. And, in a perfect world, I would like the disclaimers attached to the beginning and ending of any video/audio ads.

[Orangepeel]

68. very good

who paid for it should also be printed on the screen during the ad.

[bemildred]

33. Corporations have no rights, corporations have privileges.

Human beings have "human rights".

[panzerfaust]

34. It gives First Amendment rights to a fictional person: That is the big deal

The majority argued that the corporate "person" was unconstitutionally being denied the right of free political speech.

The minority held, as expressed by Justice Stevens:

The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation...

... {many pages cut, go read the original} ...

... the Court dramatically overstates its critique of identity-based distinctions, without ever explaining why corporate identity demands the same treatment as individual identity.

... {many pages later he summarizes (emphasis added)} ...

The majority’s rejection of this principle “elevate{s} corpora­tions to a level of deference which has not been seen at least since the days when substantive due process was regularly used to invalidate regulatory legislation thought to unfairly impinge upon established economic interests.” ... At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the com­mon sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self­-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

39. No, it did not

Corporate person-hood is a very old precedent.

It sucks plenty, but it was not something done in this decision.

This decision does not establish corporate person-hood, it relies on the exiting doctrine of corporate person-hood.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. fine, it enforced and enhanced a very bad and not quite that old precedent.

Treating corporations as persons is and was and remains a corrupt precedent. These entities are not 'persons', and that is obvious to a four year old with average intelligence. Extending constitutional protections to abstract entities is a gross absurdity. Peta has a far better case than you.


The Tillman Act of 1907 prohibiting direct contributions by corporations remains in effect. How is that possible? After all corporations are just 'persons'.

[gratuitous]

36. Non-profits cannot endorse or oppose candidates

And the question that the Court overreached to get to wasn't about corporate free speech, but that's where their ruling came out. If you think an elephant versus an ant is a fair boxing match, then this ruling is perfect for you (winning a Powerball lottery for a one-time payoff of $10 million hardly competes with ExxonMobil, which turned profits in excess of $35 billion in 2008; and they're still in business to make more in 2009, 2010 and beyond). It would also make you a corporatist, beholden to the notion that whoever has the most money, legally or illegally acquired, deserves to dominate the public sphere.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

37. Thanks for not reading

:hi:

The OP quite obviously does not advocate for the decision, nor suggest practical equity between corporate interests and other interests at all.

In fact it says the opposite.

But glad you have a chance to falsely accuse someone of horrible things.

[gratuitous]

40. Your post said non-profits can run ads opposing candidates

That is clearly erroneous. And the fruit of your wrong-headed assertions flow from there. Sorry if you feel you've been "falsely accused" of "horrible things"; choose your words more carefully, avoid lies, and you'd have a chance for a reasonable debate. Indulge in freeperish hyperbole and corporatist nonsense, and you're going to get called on it, you poor dear. Maybe ExxonMobil will buy you a crying towel.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

42. "Hillary: The Movie," the subject of the case, was funded by a non-profit

[FreakinDJ]

46. A Nonprofit CORPORATION - not a PERSON

and that is the entire context of the case

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

50. of COURSE, that is UNDERSTOOD

[NoNothing]

53. Sure they can

You're thinking of 501(c)(3) *charitable* organizations, which allow tax exempt donations. But there are lots of non-profits that are not charitable organizations, and they can spend their money on anything they want.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

62. Don't bother... that poster transcended the crude limitations of facts long ago

[Fire1]

96. There is nothing to reply to this that isn't insulting. This shit

must be contagious.

[treestar]

55. People just have it in their heads that "corporations" are bad things

And always rich and always huge.

When they try to start a business, they might change their tune or make exceptions.

Corporations are great scapegoats. Make your scapegoat the black people or the immigrants and you might be a racist or xenophobe. Make it corporations and you've cleverly avoided making it aimed at people.

[Warren Stupidity]

60. Yeah we are just delusional about the corrupt influence of large corporations

on the federal government. What a bunch of loons we are. After all, there obviously is no evidence of this corrupting influence. If there were I'm sure our first amendment protected media would be all over it.

[treestar]

56. People just have it in their heads that "corporations" are bad things

And always rich and always huge.

When they try to start a business, they might change their tune or make exceptions.

Corporations are great scapegoats. Make your scapegoat the black people or the immigrants and you might be a racist or xenophobe. Make it corporations and you've cleverly avoided making it aimed at people.

[Robb]

58. It's unpopular to consider this on the merits.

When I look at it on its face, I say, well, of course the ruling makes perfect sense. Even if the form of speech is a form that maybe 1% of the population could afford, that doesn't mean it shouldn't also be protected. If I saved my entire life to buy a blimp that says something political on the side of it, I should have the right to spend that money.

The ramifications, however, are staggering given the current distribution of wealth in this country. It is a "bad" ruling for that reason.

But you're correct, most are not looking at the actual change in law, but rather the ramifications. I suppose in the end it doesn't matter except to a few of us. Sort of like when people screw up "effect" and "affect," it grates on my nerves but really most people get the point without the grammatical accuracy.

[bemildred]

61. Well, I think the real problem is the money == speech proposition.

It leads to Orwells "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" situation. Money becomes the measure of your right to be heard.

[Robb]

69. Only in a society

...where speech cannot be heard without money. Which we sort of live in.

I also don't think it's that money=speech, but rather that expensive speech is still speech.

[bemildred]

71. One ought not equate money to the things one buys with it IMHO.

It is not just impractical, it is incorrect. If you muddle language in that sort of way, you wind up being a muddled thinker, as appears to have happened to some USSC Justices.

[BlueIdaho]

63. I fail to see how even more money in politics will make America a better place.

[kudzu22]

77. When was money ever out of politics?

Let's face it, money is influence. Always has been always will be. The only way to reduce the influence of people with money is to take away their money. Silly little spending rules like McCain-Feingold imposed did absolutely nothing to reduce the influence of money on elections, except to make it go underground. It still flowed freely through PACs and other organizations directly to fund advertisements.

This ruling changes nothing except that now we will actually get to see who is behind each ad.

[BlueIdaho]

99. Oh good - a "magic of the free market" interpretation...

In 1976 it cost an average of $87,000 to win a House seat and $609,000 a U.S. Senate seat. By the year 2000 a house seat cost an average of $842,000 and $7.2 million for the Senate. That's a ten fold increase, so are our elected representatives ten times better? Nope. Will we soon see house seats going for 8 million a pop and Senate seats clocking in at 70 million per? Its not inconceivable, after all, have you seen the size of corporate bonuses lately?

Again - I fail to see how adding more money and its corrosive influence to politics makes America better.

Other democratic nations manage to limit campaign spending why oh why can't we?

[tonysam]

76. It benefits the Republicans

That is what the decision was about. The GOP has taken a drubbing the last couple of elections, and unlimited money from corporations helps the GOP get back in the game.

It was as partisan as Bush v. Gore.

[Hosnon]

78. The major problem: This dilutes the free speech of humans.

I've seen many opinions that argue along those lines, most recently regarding voting rights (i.e., if ineligible people are not restricted, the voting rights of eligible people are infringed upon).

By giving corporations with literally inhuman amounts of money unlimited free speech rights, the power of our free speech, and thus our right thereto, is weakened.

Bad opinion.

[kiranon]

80. Just like there are women and non pregnant persons including men.

Read the General Electric decision (Rehnquist) which Congress "overturned" through legislation when the Supreme Court decided that pregnant women were not being discriminated against since non pregnant persons also included men or something like that. The SCOTUS got it wrong! There is no equivalency between corporations and an individual. Making corporations "persons" was a mistake made long ago and needs to be corrected or this great democracy will slide into fascism. Fancy footwork does not make for good decision writing when the supremes ignore reality. The conservative Supremes have an agenda and it is a very activist one and runs in favor of corporations not individuals. Meanwhile the tea baggers carry on oblivious to what is actually happening to this wonderful democracy. The threat is from the right not the left.

[Cetacea]

85. Fey

[FreakinDJ]

98. Ha - most UnRecommended Thread Ever