Citizens' United: Still Just as Horrible, a Year Later

[OneAngryDemocrat]

January 21st, 2010, was a very sad day in American history.

On that day, the Supreme Court, in a split 5-to-4 ruling, said that corporate entities have the same Constitutional free-speech rights as living, breathing citizens to participate in our electoral process.

Previously, dating back to 1907, Congress had forbade corporations, railroads and national banks from putting money into federal elections. After World War II, Congress extended the ban to include labor unions. More recently, the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002 added an extra limit on corporate and union-funded broadcast ads in the month before an election. Such ads were prohibited if they even mentioned a candidate running for office.

The Supreme Court's Citizens' United decision swept away all of those restrictions, in spite of the reality that corporations are not endowed by their (small 'c') creators with inalienable rights.

“The government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity,” said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, in complete disregard that corporations have no “identity,” for they are not people.

They do not breathe the air we breathe.

They do not eat the food we eat.

And they do not need health care, because they never get ill.

Yet, corporations now can legally and directly influence all of those things, politically.

They will not die on a battlefield, yet they now can legally advocate for and influence the wars we wage.

They do not need education, yet they now can legally influence how our schools are run.

And they can't be locked up when they do bad things.

Most disturbing, multinational corporations with foreign shareholders now have the same rights as American citizens to spend money to tilt U.S. elections, even though neither foreign citizens nor corporations can actually vote in our elections.

January 21st, 2010, was, indeed, a very sad day for America.

Del Wasso,
Rockford Coffee Party Coordinator,
Rockford, Illinois,
on the web @ http://www.rockfordcoffeeparty.org,
and on facebook @ http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=105871316101932

[Uncle Joe]

1. The most disgraceful decision since Bush vs Gore.

Thanks for the thread, OneAngryDemocrat.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

2. Thank you!

:)

[Enthusiast]

3. What can we do?

Of course it is horrible. It undermines our democracy which was on thin ice to start with. As if politicians weren't already selling their souls to the devil -so to speak.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

5. The Constitution...

The Constitution clearly says that COngress has authority to regulate commerce, and the value of our money. Why can't a simple act of the legislation bring this madness to an end?

[dotymed]

4. "Citizens United" (doublespeak)

was one of the last actions taken in the corporate "coup de tat" of America. I am sure it was not the last, but one of them...
A President has the power to "pack" the SCOTUS for various reasons. "Our"(lol) legislators have the ability to begin impeachment proceedings against "Justices" who do not act in the interests of our country.
We have the ability (for now) to complain or take to the streets....
Soon (perhaps already) we will no longer have those "rights."

[OneAngryDemocrat]

14. Step by step...

[katty]

28. yes, a perfect Orwellian name game

[skepticscott]

6. There has been more ignorant blather

about this decision among intelligent people who should know better than anyone could have imagined.

Whether you like the consequences or not, Kennedy's statement is absolutely true. The First Amendment says NOTHING about who may exercise free speech rights, only that Congress may not restrict them, regardless of where the speech in coming from. Political speech, the focus of this decision, is afforded the highest possible protection. Whether you think the speaker does not have the proper "identity" is completely irrelevant, as it is not even necessary that corporations be regarded as "persons" or "people" under the law for the First Amendment to apply.

Even if it did, would you really want corporations stripped of all the rights that the Constitution currently assigns to "people". Would you like the FBI to be able to come to the offices of DU (a corporation) or another of your favorite progressive organizations that are similarly constituted, and say "we're seizing all of your computers, files and records so that we can investigate your members and donors"? What's that, you say? The Fourth Amendment prohibits that? Under the argument put forth here and elsewhere, that corporations should enjoy NO Constitutional rights, it doesn't. Particularly since the Fourth Amendment (unlike the First) explicitly begins "The right of the people...." So which is it? Should corporations enjoy some Constitutional rights or not?

[OneAngryDemocrat]

7. And whether or not YOU like the consequences...

...the Constitution STILL clearly Congress' role in regulating commerce. When you're prepared to say I have a First Amendment right to give YOUR kids heroin, I'll buy into your argument that commerce (campaign contributions to public officials from private entitites) is free speech.

'nuff said.

[skepticscott]

8. Thanks for making my point

This is just more uninformed blather.

CU said NOTHING about direct corporate contributions to political campaigns...the same restrictions on those that were in place before that decision are STILL there. This was about what corporations were permitted to spend and do on their own, on behalf of candidates that they favored. Read the freaking decision, for pity's sake, before you spread more misinformation.

[Uncle Joe]

9. You make a distinction without a difference.

"CU said NOTHING about direct corporate contributions to political campaigns...the same restrictions on those that were in place before that decision are STILL there. This was about what corporations were permitted to spend and do on their own, on behalf of candidates that they favored. Read the freaking decision, for pity's sake, before you spread more misinformation."

CU was about spending unlimited sums of money on issue advocacy just prior to an election, how deeply does your head have to be in the ground to believe that doesn't impact individual candidate's election chances?

Corporations don't have to give unlimited money directly to their pet candidates, just saturate the mass media promoting those candidates' prime political positions or demagoguing their opposing candidates' positions and what chance does the peoples' or opposing candidate's speech stand against that kind of wealth?

[skepticscott]

10. Well, gee

according to the Constitution, there IS a difference. As I said, sorry if you don't like the result, but political speech is what it is. There is nothing in the First Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, except when one side is getting their message out a lot more effectively, in which case Congress shall step in and level the playing field."

You may think our system of campaign financing and advertising sucks, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but it can either be fixed within the strictures of the Constitution, or by violating the Constitution. Which would you favor?

[OneAngryDemocrat]

11. Au Contrare...

THe ruling states that corporations have a RIGHT - not a privilege - to participate in our campaigns.

A right, of course, which they do not have.

You need to read the ruling's dissents, and then point out the dissenting opinions' flaws, my man. Until then, you're just shilling for Corporate America.

Congress' inherent regulatory oversight in regards to commerce CLEARLY means that money does NOT equal speech.

Set, win, match.

You lose.

[skepticscott]

12. You really are flailing, aren't you?

You must realize deep down how lame your arguments are, or you wouldn't be trying so desperately to dismiss mine with nothing more than a wave of the hand and no facts.


THe ruling states that corporations have a RIGHT - not a privilege - to participate in our campaigns.

A right, of course, which they do not have.

And where exactly in your Constitution did you find justification for that wild leap? You declaring it does not make it so, not even with the bluffing "of course" added. Everyone, including individuals, groups of individuals and organizations of all stripes, has the the right to freely express their political views and opinions without interference or restraint from Congress. That's the simple fact of the matter, regardless of how hard you try to make it go away.

You need to read the ruling's dissents, and then point out the dissenting opinions' flaws, my man. Until then, you're just shilling for Corporate America.

Uh, no...I'm shilling for the Constitution. And the dissenter's arguments are, for the most part lame. The whole "Tokyo Rose" bit was an embarrassment for a SC justice. And you frankly haven't demonstrated the Constitutional wherewithal for me to dissect the dissent in detail again. Been there already.

Congress' inherent regulatory oversight in regards to commerce CLEARLY means that money does NOT equal speech.

CLEARLY? :rofl: Good, grief, where did you come up with that? So many non sequiturs that I can't even count them. Most especially that political speech is an entirely different animal from commercial speech when it comes to the First Amendment. The ability to raise and spend money is inexorably linked to the ability to disseminate political messages, and a restriction on the former amounts to an unconstitutional restriction on the latter. Even though you won't admit that, you know very well that it's true, or you wouldn't be so worried about the effects of this decision, now would you?

Set, win, match.

Uh, that would be game, set, match, dude. (And Au Contraire, btw).

Weak try, and epic fail all around.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

13. Pathetic...

"...where exactly in your Constitution did you find justification for that wild leap (that corporations do not have a Constitutional right to free speech?"

The Constitution guarentees rights to PEOPLE. Corporations are LEGISLATIVE entities - created by laws in accordance with the Constitution. The Citizens' United ruling is the first SCOTUS ruling that actually proclaims that corporations and people are one and the same, based on the fallacious idea that people can have a corporate identity.

That concept certainly isn't in the Constitution, and is the root of the ruling's dissent.

"The ability to raise and spend money is inexorably linked to the ability to disseminate political messages, and a restriction on the former amounts to an unconstitutional restriction on the latter."

First of all, one does not need money to speak, so your assumption that money and our elections are ''inexorably'' linked is a false one.

The question must be asked: can a candidate run without money?

The answer is, yes, he/she can.

Asking if that same candidate can win an election, is irrelevent (In smaller, local, elections, the answer is an emphatic 'yes').

Secondly, the wealthy do not have a Constitutionally guarenteed right to more speech than the poor.

Connecting money ''inexorably'' to our elections does just that, however.

There is some serious class wrfare going on here, and it is UGLY.


Again, Game, set, match.

[skepticscott]

16. You really don't get this, do you?

Read my post above about the Fourth Amendment, and tell me that Amendment doesn't and shouldn't apply in any way shape or form, or under any circumstances, to any corporation. Funny that you never bothered to respond to that in the midst of all your blathering. And you also failed to address the central point that the free speech clause of First Amendment restricts Congress...period. It says nothing about who may or may not exercise the right, does it? And freedom of the press...gee...you're saying that ONLY applies to individual people and not to companies that publish newspapers or magazines, or produce TV news? Please tell me you're not really saying that, because it would make you look like an even bigger fool than you already do.

You're very tiresome, and it's just not worth my time to demolish your other points...so I'll leave you to wallow in your self-righteousness...

[OneAngryDemocrat]

19. And You didn't bother to Respond to my Points...

...so a big "Fuck You" to you, too, buddy.

[liam_laddie]

15. Suggest you read...

Thom Hartmann's "Unequal Protection" (Rodale, 2002) in which he exposes the fraudulent head note, written nearly two years after the "Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad" decision in 1886. Read pages 95-119 for the facts about how J.C. Bancroft Davis (court reporter for the SCOTUS at the time), a politician, lawyer, political appointee to various offices and a former president of the Board of a small railroad in NY State, inserted sentences which were not in the original court decision. Thus it seems that corporations as persons is based on a falsehood, not on a formal decision of the SCOTUS. Corporations are NOT "natural persons" which term had been used since the country's founding to mean "human" and which term was used to define human beings in legal matters. Corporations are artificial constructs only and in no way should have the rights of natural persons. My 2¢...

[skepticscott]

17. Are you saying that corporations enjoy NONE of the rights

in the Constitution because they are not "natural persons"? Absolutely none at all, ever, under any circumstances?

[OneAngryDemocrat]

18. Absolutely None.

They only enjoy those protections which our legislature grants them.

I am NOT suggesting that corporations be banned, outlawed, et cetera.

Only that they remain the pieces of paper which they are.

[skepticscott]

20. So corporations don't

enjoy the right of freedom of the press? Or the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures? Or the right to freely contract? :rofl:

Sheer, unadulterated ignorance. We're done here.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

21. No.

No. WE THE PEOPLE enjoy those liberties, skepticscott.

Corporations ONLY enjoy those privileges which we legislatively bestow upon them.

And you are quite right - we are done here.

Our rights come along with some added baggage, sir: civic obligations which we all share in - but which corporations do not.

Neither GE, nor AT&T will be sitting in on a jury trial any time soon, my man. Nor are they going to be drafted to fight in the next war, either.

When your favorite corporation can VOTE or serve our nation, come back and let's discuss the matter of which Constitutional rights corporations have, amazingly, without any of the obligations REAL citizens must endure, as part of the social contract we have signed with government.

Until then, enjoy your blissful ignorance.

[liam_laddie]

22. SkepticScott...

:eyes:
Please, please read about what the founding fathers and our other "originators" thought about corporations or "chartered companies."
A charter could be granted to an organized entity, an association if you will, formed by a group for a particular purpose....exploration, exploitation, trade, etc.,by governments or kings or what/whoever the granting authority was.
Generally such charters were of a limited life, say 10-15 years, after which the charter might be renewed or not depending on what the authority thought of the record of the enterprise; usually there had to be some common good as part of the reason for granting the charter. Think of it as license to engage in whatever. Please see "mercantilism" in Wiki for a useful backgrounder...if you so wish.
The early founders here so distrusted chartered companies aka corporations that there were very few granted in the first several years of the new USA. The distrust grew from the colonists' experience with such chartered companies as the British East India Company. The Boston Tea Party was a protest against the business practices of the BEIC. I suspect that few of the current-day tea partiers have any knowledge much less understanding of the origin of the term.
I am not an academic; you might have a PhD in History or be an attorney for all I know, but you are mistaken in your view of what the original intent was of the government's granting to a corporation the legal standing to do business. Certainly the intervening decades have changed the circumstances, but not the original intent.
The changes have been to the detriment of the common good, IMO. Citizens' United was the final straw. It MUST be overturned.

[skepticscott]

24. So you would agree with a Supreme Court decision

that said the right of freedom of the press didn't apply to corporations (in other words, that NO news organization enjoyed that protection, and that the government could block them from publishing anything it didn't like)? Or one that said the police could search and seize any documents or property from any corporation (including DU) at any time with no warrant and no probable cause?

Is that REALLY what you're arguing? Yeah, amazingly it is.....:crazy:

[OneAngryDemocrat]

25. Apparently, you can't read...

WE THE PEOPLE enjoy those liberties, skepticscott.

Corporations ONLY enjoy those privileges which we legislatively bestow upon them.

If we legislatively create shared property - as we do with our marriage laws - then so be it.

Enjoy your shared property while you have it.

You can ask most gay couples in America about the legal status of their 'shared' property and how the states in which they live in view their particular incorporation. Most could enlighten you about your fucked-up view point very quickly.

Corporate property is just another example of shared property.

Those are laws that exist today, but can certainly be repealed tomorrow.

The Constitution does not guarentee the right for people to share property, sir.

The Feds could sell off the Grand Canyon tomorrow, sir (or ANWR) - and you would NOT get your fair share of that park to do with as you please.

Likewise, a corporation can agree to a merger, or a stock sale, and your stock - your property - can be rendered worthless (or more valuable!), and you have no recourse: you don't get to overrule the corporation's decision.

You don't get your 'shares' excluded from the corporate decision-making process.

You get the privilege's the law has given you, and nothing more.

"Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of 'We the People' by whom and for whom our Constitution was established." ~ Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the dissent, in the Citizens United case.

PS: Our rights come along with some added baggage, sir: civic obligations which we all share in - but which corporations do not.

Neither GE, nor AT&T will be sitting in on a jury trial any time soon, my man. Nor are they going to be drafted to fight in the next war, either.

When your favorite corporation can VOTE or serve our nation, come back and let's discuss the matter of which Constitutional rights corporations have, amazingly, without any of the obligations REAL citizens must endure, as part of the social contract we have signed with government.

Until then, enjoy your blissful ignorance.

[skepticscott]

26. No answer at all?

You can babble for paragraphs about irrelevant points, but can't even answer a simple yes or no question about your position and the direct consequences of it. Wonder why.

And please, don't weary me with the "tone" argument as if this were all about your feelings and not real world consequences.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

27. Which Part of "NO" did You Not Understand?

Which Part of "NO" did You Not Understand?

Was it the "N" part, or the "O" part?

Your question: "...freedom of the press didn't apply to corporations"?

My answer: Corporations ONLY enjoy those privileges which we legislatively bestow upon them.

Now be off with you, little troll.

[skepticscott]

29. Which part of that post

not being directed at you did you not understand?

As I said, I'm done trying to explain your ignorance to you.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

30. Which Part...

You're still here, troll?

Which part of "I don't give a damn, I'll respond to your posts if I choose" don't you understand?

[OneAngryDemocrat]

23. CU did say...

THe ruling did say that people have a corporate identity.

Which they do not.