Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

[The_Commonist]

Not surprisingly, I'm starting to see a lot of mis- and dis-information around here regarding this recent Supreme Court decision. For instance, this decision did NOT claim that corporations are legal persons. That all happened a long time ago. It also does NOT mean that corporations can now donate unlimited funds directly to candidates.

Here's the Wikipedia page about this decision, which includes a link to the text of the decision.
It's in all of our interests for each of us to familiarize ourselves with this decision.
And to be sure we don't misinform others.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission


And just for fun, here's the page for Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, which was where corporate personhood was established:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

[elleng]

1. From whence cometh today's agonies:

The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in U.S. v. Detroit Timber and Lumber (1905), headnotes are defined as "not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."<5>

The court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:

"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."<6>

In other words, corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons.<7> However, this issue is absent from the court's opinion itself.

Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:

Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.<8>

Waite replied:

I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.<9>

[treestar]

2. goodness, we can't have that on DU

It's so much more fun to run off foaming at the mouth about how we are all DOOMED!!!

Information gets in the way of that fun.

But seriously, K&R

[FreakinDJ]

3. Thats WRONG - it Depended on Personhood for Corps

Read Citizens United's Brief presented to the SCOTUS

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

Why are so many uninformed people here "Spewing RATpubliCON Talking Points and Dis-Information"

[bemildred]

4. The decision is premised on the "personhood of corporations"

and therefore it requires it.

[FreakinDJ]

5. That Logic was "Shredded" in this Thread too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7552697


and this paper thoroughly Trashes any arguements in favor of Corporate Personhood

SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

"The one pervading purpose . . . was the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppression of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him." That is exactly what Justice Samuel F. Miller said in 1873 in one of the first Supreme Court opinions to rule on the 14th Amendment. <83 U.S. 36, 81 (1873)>

But the wealthy, powerful men who owned corporations wanted more power for their corporations. Their lawyers came up with the idea that corporations, which might be said to be groups of persons (though one person might in turn belong to (own stock in) many corporations), should have the same constitutional rights as persons themselves. If they could get the courts to agree that corporations were persons, they could assert that the States, which had chartered the corporations, would then be constrained by the 14th Amendment from exercising power over the corporations.

Beginning in the 1870's corporate lawyers began asserting that corporations were persons with many of the rights of natural persons. It should be understood that the term "artificial person" was already in long use, with no mistake that corporations were claiming to have the rights of natural persons. "Artificial person" was used because there were certain resemblances, in law, between a natural person and corporations. Both could be parties in a lawsuit; both could be taxed; both could be constrained by law. In fact the corporations had been called artificial persons by courts in England as early as the 16th century because lawyers for the corporations had asserted they could not be convicted under the English laws of the time because the laws were worded "No person shall..."

http://www.iiipublishing.com/afd/santaclara.html

Do you have any logical arguements left.....

[jberryhill]

6. So, Nixon was right...

New York Times Co. v. US was wrongly decided.

The government had every right to prevent the NYT from publishing the Pentagon Papers because, as a corporation, it did not have rights under the First Amendment.

Same as in Sullivan v. New York Times Co.

[MrsCorleone]

8. Lol! Straight from Limbaugh's talking points to your fingertips!

:rofl:

[jberryhill]

11. When you get off the floor...

Would you mind explaining why Sullivan v. New York Times Co. is a landmark First Amendment case, since the speaker in question was New York Times Co.?

[bemildred]

9. I thought that decision was based on "prior restraint"?

It was a "freedom of the press" issue, not a "free speech" issue.

[jberryhill]

10. Oh, I'd like to hear the distinction there....

So, as long as a "press" is involved, corporations can do what they want with it, yes?

[bemildred]

12. Well, google is your friend then, that's where I looked it up.

But from the incoherence of your comment, maybe it would be better to forget it. I can tell you are attempting sarcasm, but not exactly how it's supposed to work, that is, not exactly what it is that you think that I think that you are exposing the silliness of.

[MrsCorleone]

7. Oh boy, here we go with the opposition propaganda to snuff out SC backlash.

Listen to the arguments from last Sept & tell us again why corporate personhood was not at the very center of this case.

True, corporations cannot give directly to a campaign. I mean, why bother? Now corporations can instead just buy UNLIMITED ads using their own treasuries (potentially billions $) for or against any candidate.