The USSC does not say that "money is speech"

[cthulu2016]

The courts also do not say "corporations are people."

And debunking things courts do not say is like creationists debunking the statement, "your grandfather was a monkey."


Since these issues are complex it would be better to seek to understand them so as to better contend against, and potentially reverse, the malign effect of some recent court decisions.

DU is, in fact, a corporation. And your donations to DU are, in fact, protected political expression.

So it should be stipulated that people can join together to avail themselves of the same benefits and protections that business enjoys in collective action... there is no good reason why Dow Chemicals can incorporate and the Sierra Club cannot.

And it should be stipulated that funding speech and distributing speech are intimately connected to speech.

There are things one can do with money that are part of their speech rights. Not the money itself, the use of money. (Is protection of your right to put something in the collection plate every Sunday a statement that "money is religion"? No. But money can be part of the free exercise of religion. The question is when and how.)

It would make no sense to say that Michael Moore is free to make Fahrenheit 911, but that he cannot sell it to Sony Pictures Home Entertainment to make and sell DVDs of it.

And it would make no sense to say that Congress can outlaw sales of that DVD by Sony Pictures Home Entertainment because Sony didn't author the film, and has no 1st Amendment rights, being a corporation.


And as to corporations being people... thankfully Mitt Romney is not a federal judge. Nobody has found, legally, that a corporation is a person. Corporations are held to have the legal status of persons for certain purposes. If they were not they could not enter into a contract. They could not sue or be sued.

And as with DU, Sony DVD and the Sierra club, a corporation formed to disseminate speech does have some speech rights.

The questions are about the dimension and character of those rights, not whether they exist.

How can or cannot these rights that everyone knows exist be limited?

And the same goes for money. Of course some uses of money enjoy 1st Amendment protection. The questions are the dimension and character of that protection.

[ProSense]

1. Well,

The USSC does not say that "money is speech"

The courts also do not say "corporations are people."

<...>

DU is, in fact, a corporation. And your donations to DU are, in fact, protected political expression.

So it should be stipulated that people can join together to avail themselves of the same benefits and protections that business enjoys in collective action... there is no good reason why Dow Chemicals can incorporate and the Sierra Club cannot.

And it should be stipulated that funding speech and distributing speech are intimately connected to speech.

...thanks for that spin in an attempt to defend both decisions.

People donating to DU are not corporations, and are also not DU.

[cthulu2016]

3. Dumb slander from Prosense: "spin in an attempt to defend both decisions"

[ProSense]

4. Now, you're proving that you don't know the definition of "slander." n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

36. Ummm. while I might be inclined to agree with your STRICTLY

legalistic reading of the SCOTUS decisions, I hesitate to trust your opinion on legal matters because of this post.

You accuse Prosense of "slander". Slander is legally actionable SPOKEN statements which are untrue and/or defamatory. Actionable untrue/defamatory WRITTEN statements are "libel". Also, Prosense's comments do not rise to the level of defamation, and their "factuality" is subjective in any case.

Since this is really basic Law-101 stuff, and you got it wrong, it does not speak with conviction to your ability to address VERY complicated legal rulings such as Citizen's United and McCutcheon.

[cthulu2016]

40. While your reply would be apropos in a courtroom, we aren't in one

The word "slander" is correctly used, in a rhetorical context (which I believe we are in), to denote any defaming statement (written or spoken) that is false... and particularly so when it is malicious.

My statement stands.

As for the snark about the complexities of Citizen's United and McCutcheon... if anyone disagrees with the OP then god help them with complexities.

Since the dissents in those cases don't disagree with anything in the OP it would take either an exceptional subtlety of mind, or perhaps crudeness of mind, to find the OP supportive of those decisions.

Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer do not speak or write in bumper-stickers. The dissents do not talk about how if money is speech they have a first amendment right to buy drugs, or how if corporations are people then corporations formed less than 18 years ago cannot merge with older corporations, lest it be statutory rape.

This entire thread is equivalent to stating that human beings did not evolve from chimps (we assuredly did not) and thence being denounced as an evolution denier.

The morning McCutcheon was announced there were people here who thought that all limits on donations had been eliminated. What is the upside to people having that belief?

If campaign finance is to be re-reformed it will not be because some genius makes it to the Supreme Court to announce that corporations aren't people and money isn't speech.

It will rely on arguments about the proper parameters of the necessity, in some form, that corporations be persons and money be speech in certain legal contexts.

[Jefferson23]

2. It was Roberts who fast tracked Citizens United and it was likley the most egregious case imo, of

pushing a political ideology by a CJ, ever..but I will leave that as fact or not to the historians.

What Roberts was able to recognize was an American electorate that wanted to go left,
all the indicators were there..and he saw an opportunity to keep the imbalance intact as
he sees fit.

His rationale is bullshit, but it is time we find another legal remedy for the majorities horrific decision.

[cthulu2016]

5. I believe the conservatives are motivated by partisan hackery

[Jefferson23]

7. Clearly, and he knew who would side with him. We need to push it back. Senator Sanders:

Fight for public funded elections.

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/4/3/sen_bernie_sanders_supreme_court_undermines

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. The Supremes sort of did say corporations are people, in the sense that

corporations were deemed to be legal "persons" for certain business purposes, particularly litigation. That is, a corporation can sue and be sued as if it were a natural human. If it couldn't, it would be pretty impossible for corporations to be sued, and we need to be able to do that. And corporations regularly sue each other, for good reasons and bad (in fact, the vast majority of cases filed in the federal system are instances of commercial litigation). The problem is that this corporate "personhood," which is necessary in some ways to conduct business, got all spun out of shape, resulting in the notion that a corporation has all of the same constitutional rights as an actual human. Obviously the humans who own and operate the corporation have constitutional rights, but how can you transfer those rights to the inchoate and abstract corporation, without disregarding the corporation's separate entity which is what allows the individual owners to insulate themselves from the corporation's debts and liabilities? I've never understood that.

You say corporations formed to disseminate speech have the right to free speech. I would argue that the individuals who formed the corporation have the right to free speech, but the corporation is merely the abstract entity organized to do so more efficiently, with no separate constitutional rights of its own. And what about those corporations that were just formed to do business of some kind, like the corporations owned by the Koch brothers? If those corporations weren't "formed to disseminate speech" in the first place, why would they have the right to free speech, independent from their human owners' rights?

[ProSense]

10. Well said. Yes,

....The problem is that this corporate "personhood," which is necessary in some ways to conduct business, got all spun out of shape, resulting in the notion that a corporation has all of the same constitutional rights as an actual human. Obviously the humans who own and operate the corporation have constitutional rights, but how can you transfer those rights to the inchoate and abstract corporation, without disregarding the corporation's separate entity which is what allows the individual owners to insulate themselves from the corporation's debts and liabilities? I've never understood that.

You say corporations formed to disseminate speech have the right to free speech. I would argue that the individuals who formed the corporation have the right to free speech, but the corporation is merely the abstract entity organized to do so more efficiently, with no separate constitutional rights of its own. And what about those corporations that were just formed to do business of some kind, like the corporations owned by the Koch brothers? If those corporations weren't "formed to disseminate speech" in the first place, why would they have the right to free speech, independent from their human owners' rights?

...corporations can be sued. In the case of the "owner's rights," if the owner want the corporation to have the right to free speech, then when a corporation is found criminally liable, the owner should receive a penalty. If owners want to equate their personal views with that of the corporation, then when the corporation is found criminally negligent, convict the owners.

[Nye Bevan]

11. If only natural persons had constitutional protections, all sorts of horrible things could happen.

For example, the police in red states could raid Planned Parenthood offices for no reason at all, whenever they felt like it, just to browse through their records and take down names of doctors and patients. The authorities could pay a visit to the offices of DemocraticUnderground LLC and force them (without any probable cause of any crime) to hand over the personal records of all DUers. And so on.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

25. In the case of a hypothetical PP raid

the constitutional rights at issue are those of the individual patients, not PP. Same with a "raid" on DU.

[cheyanne]

12. Do you see another way to keep money out of the political arena?

[Metatron]

8. The 1976 Court did

see Buckley v Valeo 424 U.S. 1 (1976)

[Nye Bevan]

9. Money IS speech. Sorry folks.

Say that we had a Republican House, Senate and president, and they passed a law saying that nobody was allowed to spend money to criticize Republicans. Under this law, people would be allowed to stand on street corners and make speeches about how they hated Republicans; they could hold meetings and rallies and make handmade signs denouncing Republicans, but they would not be allowed to spend any money on TV advertising, or any other kind of advertising, or to publish books or any other media, that criticized Republicans in any way. Should such a law be constitutional? The "money isn't speech" crowd would say yes, because this law only addresses money, as opposed to speech. But of course the reality is that in the United States today everybody needs money to get their message out, whether it's an individual, corporation, union or other entity buying TV ads, or people of more modest means pooling their resources to publicize their cause.

[ProSense]

13. That doesn't

Money IS speech. Sorry folks.

Say that we had a Republican House, Senate and president, and they passed a law saying that nobody was allowed to spend money to criticize Republicans. Under this law, people would be allowed to stand on street corners and make speeches about how they hated Republicans; they could hold meetings and rallies and make handmade signs denouncing Republicans, but they would not be allowed to spend any money on TV advertising, or any other kind of advertising, or to publish books or any other media, that criticized Republicans in any way. Should such a law be constitutional? The "money isn't speech" crowd would say yes, because this law only addresses money, as opposed to speech. But of course the reality is that in the United States today everybody needs money to get their message out, whether it's an individual, corporation, union or other entity buying TV ads, or people of more modest means pooling their resources to publicize their cause.

...mean "money is speech." It means "TV advertising" cost money.

Also equating publishing a book to political donations or TV advertising is absurd. TV advertising uses the public airwaves.

People can publish books in their basement. It has more in common with "handmade signs" than TV advertising.

[Nye Bevan]

14. Would you be OK with banning corporations from publishing books that criticized election candidates

during the run up to the election? For example, say a publishing corporation wanted to spend a lot of money publishing a book in 2016 that was highly critical of Hillary Clinton (assuming that she was the Democratic candidate for president). Would you be OK with banning, or restricting, the publisher from doing this, as part of your preferred system for campaign finance reform?

[ProSense]

15. Again

"Would you be OK with banning corporations from publishing books that criticized election candidates"

...the situations are not analogous.

[Nye Bevan]

16. Well, would you? (nt)

[ProSense]

17. Ask me if I would ban "handmade signs."

You can't seem to accept that the two are not the same. I'm against banning books.

The issue isn't one about criticism.

[Nye Bevan]

19. So where do you draw the line?

How can you allow physical books but not allow e-books on an e-reader?
How can you allow e-books on an e-reader but not e-books on a website?
How can you allow e-books on a website and not allow HTML documents?
How can you allow HTML documents but ban them from containing embedded pictures?
How can you allow embedded pictures in HTML documents but ban embedded video?
How can you allow HTML embedded video but not Youtube video?
How can you allow Youtube videos but ban Youtube ads?
How can you allow Youtube ads but not cable and satellite TV ads?
How can you allow cable and satellite TV ads but not network TV ads?

[ProSense]

20. Well,

"So where do you draw the line?"

...I "draw the line" at false equivalencies and spin.

[Nye Bevan]

23. I understand that these are difficult questions to answer for those who want to limit free speech.

But the government stated in its argument to the Supreme Court during Citizens United that it would never, ever want to ban books. Regardless of how much it costs to publish them and regardless of their intent to influence elections. Now, 30 years ago you could draw distinct lines between "books", the "press", and "TV advertising". But today you can't. Even if you could somehow draw the line between TV advertising and the publication of a book, for First Amendment purposes, I think a political lobbying group would prefer to (for example) send an e-book to everyone's smartphone than to advertise on TV.

[ProSense]

27. Well,

I understand that these are difficult questions to answer for those who want to limit free speech.

But the government stated in its argument to the Supreme Court during Citizens United that it would never, ever want to ban books. Regardless of how much it costs to publish them and regardless of their intent to influence elections. Now, 30 years ago you could draw distinct lines between "books", the "press", and "TV advertising". But today you can't. Even if you could somehow draw the line between TV advertising and the publication of a book, for First Amendment purposes, I think a political lobbying group would prefer to (for example) send an e-book to everyone's smartphone than to advertise on TV.

...from that, I understand that you're dismissing a point and still conflating issues.

[cthulu2016]

18. You will find that arguing with a nihilist approach to argument is fruitless

Last edited Sat Apr 5, 2014, 01:58 PM - Edit history (1)

[ProSense]

21. Did you look up the meaning of "slander"? n/t

[cthulu2016]

26. Yes.

It said that slander is whatever Prosense says it is, at any given point in time.

And, oddly enough, it turned out that all words had that same definition.

[ProSense]

28. "It said that slander is whatever Prosense says it is, at any given point in time."

Losing the argument?

[BumRushDaShow]

22. How is your name-calling somehow "fruitful"?

[cthulu2016]

24. In this context it is hardly name-calling.

In the context of any online argument, Prosense is a nihilist. It is her mode of argument... to admit to no reality outside the argument itself. To accept no authority, no fact, no argument that does not equal Prosense being right.

It is a highly effective approach to online argument, but in the exchange I was commenting upon, the one party will surely find himself frustrated, since Prosense is not likely to accept the sky being blue if it is not helpful.

For instance, the fellow, having rejected my advice, is currently trying to get Prosense to admit to any definition of "book." It will not happen, since the proposition in play is Prosense saying that she opposes banning books, and accepting *any* definition of book would subject that statement to examination.

But by shrugging off the idea that there is a definable thing called book, the statement "I do not support banning books," is beyond examination.

If you are thinking of Turgenev's FATHERS AND SONS where a nihilist is a bearded man with one of those old fashioned round bombs to throw at some arch-duke or another... I stipulate that Prosense is not that kind of nihilist.

In that light, I edited the offending post, lest anyone think Prosense a bearded fellow circa 1900.

[BumRushDaShow]

29. Sorry but your argument for making ad-hominems is weak

And providing gobbledy-gook to try to justify your dismissiveness to views counter to your own, fails. You attribute personality traits to the poster rather than countering the argument. And since your argument may have holes that you may not be seeing, then it's easier to dramatically and paternalistically "throw up your hands" and come up with an excuse and a label to blame the "other side" rather than address the discrepancy in viewpoint.

[cthulu2016]

32. Have a nice day.

[ProSense]

30. "In the context of any online argument, Prosense is a nihilist."

LOL! That's about as nonsensical as the OP.

[SunsetDreams]

31. There SHOULD be no context

or excuse for name calling another DUer EVER.

[cthulu2016]

33. Then alert on it.

[SunsetDreams]

34. No I think my point was made

It's not often that I alert, I'll leave that for others to decide.

[Laelth]

38. I think your assessment of Pro is spot on.

I continue to be convinced that her heart is in the right place, and she posts some stuff that adds value to DU, but it's pointless to discuss anything with her. I think you explained why that is the case ... precisely.

-Laelth

[ProSense]

39. Well,

"I continue to be convinced that her heart is in the right place, and she posts some stuff that adds value to DU, but it's pointless to discuss anything with her. I think you explained why that is the case ... precisely. "

...I think that's ridiculous. No one says a "discussion" has to end in agreement.

Agreeing with name calling says more about you than me.

[Laelth]

41. Fair enough.

We need people like you, Pro--people with a "win at all costs" attitude. That's just not why I am here. I have no interest in "winning" an argument with you. In fact, I have no interest in arguing with you at all.

I would like more Democrats to win, however, and to the extent you aid in that process, more power to you.

Cheers!

-Laelth

[ProSense]

42. No,

"We need people like you, Pro--people with a 'win at all costs' attitude. That's just not why I am here. I have no interest in 'winning' an argument with you. In fact, I have no interest in arguing with you at all."

...you don't get to attach your label to me. You stated your opinion. You have no friggin clue who I am.

[Laelth]

43. I will let you have the last word on this.

Now, please, buzz off.

-Laelth

[ProSense]

44. "Now, please, buzz off."

Like I said in my first response to you: Agreeing with name calling says more about you than me.

You then set out to prove the point.

[Frustratedlady]

35. Don't give them any ideas. eom

[stevenleser]

37. What is critical is that they did not say "Money is NOT speech and has no 1st amendment protection".

To conflate campaign donations and spending on political agendas with something protected by the 1st amendment like speech and therefore Unconstitutional to regulate is a gross perversion of the intent of the 1st amendment.

It is vital to regulate campaign donations of the wealthy to prevent my speech and the speech of other poor and middle class folks from being drowned out. If there is a free speech issue here, that is it. The limit on campaign donations to an individual candidate should be very low as should the aggregate limit to all candidates by an individual. Corporations and other entities should not be able to contribute at all.

[BumRushDaShow]

45. "It is vital to regulate....to prevent my speech...from being drowned out."

Edited quote to put a finer point on it that summarizes the key issue....

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So by disallowing any regulation at all, one can conceivably create an environment that actually abridges the freedom of speech of the many because of the overwhelming speechifying actions of the few. And in this case, when it comes to individuals being able to effectively petition their government for a redress of grievances through their right to vote in elections, when those elections are inextricably tied to the patronage by the few for the few, ultimately limiting an individual's choices for who would represent them. I think this is why they have so far taken big chomps around the edges but still manage to leave "some regulation" in place.

[tblue37]

46. Elections should be publicly financed, candidatees should have to campaign within

a restricted time frame, and there should be "truth in advertising" rules similar to those imposed on commercial advertisers.