# Supreme court ruling on campaigns



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Any thoughts on this?

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22donate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

I have to admit I am a little conflicted on this one. While the spectre of watching Exxon extol the virtues of one candidate over the other gives me chills, being the free-speech-at-all-costs guy I am, I can't in good faith totally dismiss it as a death knell of political discourse in this country. Who knows? It may even be good for it.

There are plenty of well-funded PACS on the Left and Right that already dine at this feast...remember that. Freedom of speech ain't always pretty, folks.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

TMMKC said:


> ...being the free-speech-at-all-costs guy I am, I can't in good faith totally dismiss it as a death knell of political discourse in this country.


Free speech would seem to apply only to individuals (with the exception of The Press, but that's another amendment) and until Exxon begins a cable news channel, I believe they should rightfully be excluded. But of course the five rightytighties do not concur. I'm with Schumer.
​


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

TMMKC said:


> While the spectre of watching Exxon extol the virtues of one candidate over the other gives me chills, being the free-speech-at-all-costs guy I am...


Prior to M/F it seemed that Nationals and Multinationals hedged their bets with Presidential candidates anyway.

I think it will have more effect locally but since their are few one-industry towns left, I don't even see that being too big a deal.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Whether free speech is a good idea wasn't at issue, and the supreme court definitely got it right. 

And as an aside, I think the idea that political speech is suspect and pornography or live sex shows are nearly immune from regulation as "free speech" is just absurd. But the left likes porn and hates corporations, so that's how liberal justices vote.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*My version of campaign finance reform*

Only registered voters can contribute to election campaigns, and contributions may only be spent in the states where they are raised.

Individual (not corporations and unions) could still spend their own money to finance political adds (free speech), but they would have to include their name and address, and they should be open to lawsuits for slander and libel. However, given the corrupt nature of our politicians, I don't see how it would be possible to slander or libel them.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> I'm with Schumer.





> The Securities and Investment industry is the largest donor to Schumer's senatorial campaigns.
> 
> *Top 5 Contributors, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte*
> 
> ContributorTotalIndivsPACsPaul, Weiss et al$87,850$87,850$0Weitz & Luxenberg$81,400$81,400$0Credit Suisse Group$59,700$49,700$10,000Kasowitz, Benson et al$55,750$55,750$0Sullivan & Cromwell$54,400$54,400$0


Schumer should just stop talking. To pretend the government already isn't horribly corrupt is just ignoring reality.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

harvey_birdman said:


> To pretend the government already isn't horribly corrupt is just ignoring reality.


Right....so lets REALLY put the boot in and make it worse


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I think the idea that political speech is suspect and pornography or live sex shows are nearly immune from regulation as "free speech" is just absurd.


Do you have a list of those places where porn and live sex shows are immune ffrom regulation because I've got some vacation time coming up.
​


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

harvey_birdman; said:


> The Securities and Investment industry is the largest donor to Schumer's senatorial campaigns.


Then that makes Shumer's yesterday reaction all the more praise-worthy.​


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

M/F was (and reamins) a hideous piece of unconstitutional legislation. Undoing any part of it is a good thing.

Even beyond the constitutional issues, as an avowed "no regulations" guy, I say let everyone run as many ads as they like. I don't care whether it's George Soros, Pat Robertson, or some other loon. To the best of my knowledge, each state has defamation laws which are the only limits I wish to see on speach.

I've never understood M/F or any other limits on political speach. Many of our founding documents recognize and were intended particularly to protect political speach.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> Then that makes Shumer's yesterday reaction all the more praise-worthy.​


Or cynical.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

smujd said:


> I've never understood M/F or any other limits on political* speach*.


Nor have you understood how to spell it correctly.



> M/F was (and reamins) a hideous piece of unconstitutional legislation. Undoing any part of it is a good thing.
> 
> Even beyond the constitutional issues, as an avowed "no regulations" guy, I say let everyone run as many ads as they like. I don't care whether it's George Soros, Pat Robertson, or some other loon. To the best of my knowledge, each state has defamation laws which are the only limits I wish to see on *speach.*
> 
> I've never understood M/F or any other limits on political* speach*. Many of our founding documents recognize and were intended particularly to protect political *speach*.


(Smujd's my buddy; he can take it.)
​


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

smujd said:


> Or cynical.


What??

You have a problem with spinning hypocrisy into praise-worthyness??

ic12337:


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> What?? You have a problem with spinning hypocrisy into praise-worthyness??


Now, now. Who's the cynical one now?

(I deleted your smileys because smileys drive me nuts.)
​


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> Now, now. Who's the cynical one now?
> ​


​I've seen your cynicism and raise you 2 scepticisms!!


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> Nor have you understood how to spell it correctly.​


There's my Texas education doing me in again... 



Peak and Pine said:


> (Smujd's my buddy; he can take it.)
> ​


Quite so. And well deserved.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> (I deleted your smileys because smileys drive me nuts.)




(I fixed your formatting because the indentation drives me nuts.)


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> (I deleted your smileys because smileys drive me nuts.)


Pirate walks into a bar with a steering wheel on his zipper. Bartender says, "what's that steering wheel doing on your zipper." Pirate replies, "Argh, it's drivin' me nuts." :icon_smile_big:

Apologies to all--slow day at the office.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Peak and Pine said:


> Free speech would seem to apply only to individuals (with the exception of The Press, but that's another amendment) and until Exxon begins a cable news channel, I believe they should rightfully be excluded.
> ​


That's where I get hung up on this. Larger organizations like PACs seem to be afforded many of the same free speech rights as individuals. Though technically non-profit, in many ways they are businesses....and in many ways the people and companies that donate to them may not have much control over the messages that ultimately get sent out.

Why then would a corporation be excluded? Is it because corporations are for-profit entities and influencing the outcomes of political races could have direct impact on thier bottom lines? Is it because thier communications and lobbying efforts are not funded by free-will donations by like-minded individuals? I guess one could argue that a corporation, by virtue of its efforts to promote a particular cause or politician, is only preserving it's own self interests and those of the people (employees, investors) who rely on it for their livelihoods.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> That's where I get hung up on this. Larger organizations like PACs seem to be afforded many of the same free speech rights as individuals. Though technically non-profit, in many ways they are businesses....and in many ways the people and companies that donate to them may not have much control over the messages that ultimately get sent out.
> 
> Why then would a corporation be excluded? Is it because corporations are for-profit entities and influencing the outcomes of political races could have direct impact on thier bottom lines? Is it because thier communications and lobbying efforts are not funded by free-will donations by like-minded individuals? I guess one could argue that a corporation, by virtue of its efforts to promote a particular cause or politician, is only preserving it's own self interests and those of the people (employees, investors) who rely on it for their livelihoods.


Yes, profit is bad, bad, bad. The wages of exploitation. And high-income earners should be excluded too. The First Amendment was never intended to be used to protect economic or political self-interest. It was intended to ensure that mall owners had to reserve space for loud activists with signs.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Freedom of the "press" is the freedom to publish. It's not referring only to professionals, i.e., "the press" as we use the phrase today.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> The First Amendment was never intended to be used to protect economic or political self-interest.


But I assume rich Virginia farmers who didn't want to pay taxes were excluded from that original intent?:icon_smile_big: People and organizations use the First Amendment all the time to protect their own economic and political self-interests. I am not saying that it's necessarily right but, by that logic, why should corporations be excluded?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

TMMKC said:


> Why then would a corporation be excluded [from the umbrella of free speech]?
> 
> Is it because corporations are for-profit entities and influencing the outcomes of political races could have direct impact on thier bottom lines? Is it because thier communications and lobbying efforts are not funded by free-will donations by like-minded individuals?


You have provided two well thought out answers to your own question. But not so much with the third...



> ...one could argue that a corporation, by virtue of its efforts to promote a particular cause or politician, is only preserving it's own self interests and those of the people (employees, investors) who rely on it for their livelihoods.


One_ could_ argue that, but that would hardly be the prime motive for a corporation touting one cause or person over another. What you describe would be more of a trickle-down effect.
​


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> But I assume rich Virginia farmers who didn't want to pay taxes were excluded from that original intent?:icon_smile_big: People and organizations use the First Amendment all the time to protect their own economic and political self-interests. I am not saying that it's necessarily right but, by that logic, why should corporations be excluded?


You nailed it. It is plainly a violation of natural law for people to exploit the protections of the First Amendment just to protect their interests. But the fact that people do it does not mean we should let corporations get away with it. Two wrongs don't make a right. The purpose of corporations is to employ people and pay taxes, and speech rights are not compatable. It all comes down to profit. There will always be some people who favor it.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

So corporations shouldn't be able to advertise to protect their interests? Think about it this way: if people who invest with companies don't like their ads, they can sell their stock. If enough people don't like the advertising, the stock price will decrease and the companies will have to stop the advertising or the people who are responsible could be ousted.

Schumer's hatred of this bill is simply because as an incumbent with a lot of connections gets plenty of PAC's created who raise tons of money and spend it helping him get re-elected for some good ol' quid pro quo. This only levels the playing field and increases transparency.

The irony is it may have been Obama's failure to take public funds that led to this. McCain warned that there would be unforeseen consequences of him not taking public funds and limiting his spending.


----------



## AscotWithShortSleeves (Apr 12, 2009)

OK, temptation has gotten the better of me, so I now chime in with my two cents.

The intent of the framers with the first amendment was to preserve *individual* liberty--not that of groups of people, which is what corporations are. In fact, the whole tenor of the document is the protection of the rights of the individual from the desires of the many--as evinced as well by the second amendment. And the other eight in the Bill of Rights. That said, we have amended the Constitution 17 times since, because the framers were far from perfect.

I don't think corporations should be denied the right to defend themselves or advance their interests in the forum of public opinion. But I think the use of a publicly owned resource (the airwaves) is a different matter. Then again, most people get their TV from cable or satellite now.

Whether one is liberal or conservative (or moderate), I think any reasonable person would find the prospect of corporations basically dictating the outcomes of elections frightening.

Then again, one could argue that this already happens, in that the major donations come (whether directly or channeled through 501(c)3 groups) from wealthy donors--who in turn have (most of them, anyway) derived that wealth from a corporation.

However, I think that this era of political power being relative to the ability to spend money on TV advertising might end well within our lifetimes--because of the Internet and the proliferation of social media. I'm an old man (late 30s)--so I still watch network TV shows on an actual TV. But these young kids don't. (I also use semicolons in the one text message I send every four months. But I digress.)

In 30 years, I think--I hope--this will mean that the ability to gain political power will depend solely on one's ability to inspire others through ideas and achievement.

Whether you are more afraid of the trial lawyers or the oil companies, I think this is something we as Americans can all hope for.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

AscotWithShortSleeves said:


> Whether one is liberal or conservative (or moderate), I think any reasonable person would find the prospect of corporations basically dictating the outcomes of elections frightening.


How does advertising dictate the outcome of an election? That seems like a straw man to me. What did people do before 1947? Just do/buy whatever they were told to in the ads in the paper or on the radio?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> How does advertising dictate the outcome of an election? That seems like a straw man to me. What did people do before 1947? Just do/buy whatever they were told to in the ads in the paper or on the radio?


O come now, you're not that dense. Radio and newspapers were very influential. Now add to that tv and cable and the internet and texting and robo calling and all sorts of means of pushing an influential message out there. You think the parroting of talking points isn't just that, parroting, which usually originates with advertising (or Limbaugh, who of course is a big, fat, mellon-headed ad for your side).​


----------



## AscotWithShortSleeves (Apr 12, 2009)

brokencycle said:


> How does advertising dictate the outcome of an election? That seems like a straw man to me. What did people do before 1947? Just do/buy whatever they were told to in the ads in the paper or on the radio?


That's a fair question. I don't think advertising currently *dictates* election outcomes--but I think that we run the risk of this if we allow any group of people to spend any amount on advertising for a candidate. I'm not suggesting that any candidate could beat any other candidate if there's enough in his/her war chest--but when there are two more or less equally competitive candidates, I could see that a barrage of positive and negative ads on behalf of one candidate could have a huge effect.

If you are conservative, you might see President Obama as a beneficiary of this phenomenon; some conservatives see his victory (and perhaps that of JFK over Nixon) as one wherein the less-experienced and less-qualified but more TV-friendly candidate won.

If you are moderate or liberal, you might see Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's victory as an example of this--a good-looking, well-spoken guy with great TV ads trounces a candidate with roughly equal experience, far more detailed policy proposals--but rarely viewed and horribly executed advertising.

On whether the Internet will render TV moot: After more reflection, I suspect we will simply see more ads on the Internet and fewer on TV--so that money will still have undue influence on the process.

One way to remedy this would be to require all campaign contributions to go into a shared account for all political advertising that all candidates could draw from equally. That way, who wins would be less determined by how slick or how frequent his/her commercials are.

Maybe someday.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Ideally, yes, but the first thing that will happen after that bill is passed is that large amounts of money will go to lawyers and consultants to find any way to advertise or communicate in ways that won't be regulated by whatever law is passed.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> O come now, you're not that dense. Radio and newspapers were very influential. Now add to that tv and cable and the internet and texting and robo calling and all sorts of means of pushing an influential message out there. You think the parroting of talking points isn't just that, parroting, which usually originates with advertising (or Limbaugh, who of course is a big, fat, mellon-headed ad for your side).​


You're right. That's why I've gone out and bought a Toyota, switched to Geiko, buy tons of whatever beer they are advertising this week, seen my doctor about viagra, and stocked my house with hundreds of shamwows.

You're right! The average American is far too stupid. We need more government to keep them safe.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

I read a (somewhat) interesting piece in the Kansas City Star this morning that suggested the worry about what the ruling may create could very well be much ado about nothing.

Several area political and communications consultants noted that, while companies may have a new-found right to produce commercials endorsing specific candidates, few may actually jump at the chance out of fear of customer or stockholder anger. Granted, many companies already donate to campaigns (which carries its own set of risks), but the opportunity to do a full-court press in favor of one candidate over the other may be a risk few are eager to take.

I am sure it's too much to hope that this will be a self-regulating venture.


----------



## AscotWithShortSleeves (Apr 12, 2009)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Ideally, yes, but the first thing that will happen after that bill is passed is that large amounts of money will go to lawyers and consultants to find any way to advertise or communicate in ways that won't be regulated by whatever law is passed.


I believe you are right! I can just see it now--smiling faces of candidates looking at us from every street corner, via sandwich boards.


----------



## AscotWithShortSleeves (Apr 12, 2009)

brokencycle said:


> You're right! The average American is far too stupid. We need more government to keep them safe.


I don't think it's saying all people are stupid or gullible to acknowledge that advertising is _generally_ effective--or at least that it has a large effect on enough people to make a difference. I don't think people who run corporations are stupid generally, and they're putting billions into advertising.

But putting that aside: Can you really say honestly that during primary season, the candidate with the most cash is not viewed as the most viable candidate?

And if you agree on that point, then doesn't this in itself influence the process?

In other words, even if we accept the debatable premise that advertising is completely ineffective, so many people _believe_ that it works that having more money to spend on advertising than your opponent has makes you seem more of a contender to voters (and to future donors).


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

AscotWithShortSleeves said:


> I believe you are right! I can just see it now--smiling faces of candidates looking at us from every street corner, via sandwich boards.


The possibilities are limitless. We will have reached a new point in campaigning when corporate-sponsored political ads start appearing on the backs of boxers.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

AscotWithShortSleeves said:


> I don't think it's saying all people are stupid or gullible to acknowledge that advertising is _generally_ effective--or at least that it has a large effect on enough people to make a difference. I don't think people who run corporations are stupid generally, and they're putting billions into advertising.
> 
> But putting that aside: Can you really say honestly that during primary season, the candidate with the most cash is not viewed as the most viable candidate?
> 
> ...


Rich candidates can already spend their own money as much as they want. Look at Bloomberg for example.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> You're right. That's why I've gone out and bought a *Toyota*, switched to *Geiko* [sic], buy tons of whatever* beer* they are advertising this week, seen my doctor about *viagra*, and stocked my house with hundreds of *shamwows.*
> 
> You're right! The average American is far too stupid. We need more government to keep them safe.


Your sarcasm is about to cave in upon itself.

In 1977 a tv ad announced that the viewer would in a moment be introduced to the least expensive new car being sold in America, as well as being the hands down MPG champ. It was the *Toyota* Answer (Corolla) and I drove to Topsham Toyota the very next day and bought one new for $2,995. Five years ago I switched to *Geico *based solely on their hyper clever advertising. I am not a *beer *drinker, but were I, I would sample those that advertised well. The only way I've even heard about *Viagra *is through advertising and I am seriously considering a *Shammwow* because Vince is a throwback to the boardwalk hawkers I used to see and admire as a kid.

Advertising and it's brother PR are among the most potent forces in the civilized universe, and not just for business and politics, but for individuals as well. And with individuals it's usually synonymous with personality and charsima. How could you not know this?​


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> Your sarcasm is about to cave in upon itself.
> 
> In 1977 a tv ad announced that the viewer would in a moment be introduced to the least expensive new car being sold in America, as well as being the hands down MPG champ. It was the *Toyota* Answer (Corolla) and I drove to Topsham Toyota the very next day and bought one new for $2,995. Five years ago I switched to *Geico *based solely on their hyper clever advertising. I am not a *beer *drinker, but were I, I would sample those that advertised well. The only way I've even heard about *Viagra *is through advertising and I am seriously considering a *Shammwow* because Vince is a throwback to the boardwalk hawkers I used to see and admire as a kid.
> 
> Advertising and it's brother PR are among the most potent forces in the civilized universe, and not just for business and politics, but for individuals as well. And with individuals it's usually synonymous with personality and charsima. How could you not know this?​


My point is that advertising does not force anyone to purchase anything nor does it create a need. Humans aren't slaves to whatever is advertised. I don't drink beer, so beer commercials don't convince me to buy brand x. I am happy with my USAA auto-insurance, and there isn't a chance I would switch, so despite being told 10 times in a half-hour I can save $400/year on auto-insurance, I haven't switched. I haven't bought a Toyota despite being told how great they are and blah blah blah. I don't need a new car, nor would I buy a Toyota, I guess it is growing up in a family where my step-dad worked for Chrysler. :icon_smile_wink: All the ads telling me I can perform better haven't convinced me to ask my doctor about that miracle pill.

Just because now GE is going to come on the air and tell me to vote for candidate D or Winchester tells me to vote for candidate R, doesn't mean I will, nor do I think many Americans will.

Why should the only groups allowed to voice their opinions the week before an election be MSNBC, Fox, and the candidates themselves?


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

How we got from campaign finance deform to auto insurance, I don't know. But since we're there, what's your opinion of Amica Mutual?

When I moved to Berkeley, State Farm bumped my insurance up several hundred dollars per year. So I dumped them.

Amica is cheaper and has good ratings. Any opinions?

(Oh, and now companies can now spend whatever they want on ads? Well, when Obama is done, everything will be privatized---i.e., government run---so look for General Motors ads for democrats over the course of the next few years.)


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> My point is that advertising does not force anyone to purchase anything nor does it create a need. Humans aren't slaves to whatever is advertised. I don't drink beer, so beer commercials don't convince me to buy brand x. I am happy with my USAA auto-insurance, and there isn't a chance I would switch, so despite being told 10 times in a half-hour I can save $400/year on auto-insurance, I haven't switched. I haven't bought a Toyota despite being told how great they are and blah blah blah. I don't need a new car, nor would I buy a Toyota, I guess it is growing up in a family where my step-dad worked for Chrysler. :icon_smile_wink: All the ads telling me I can perform better haven't convinced me to ask my doctor about that miracle pill.
> 
> Just because now GE is going to come on the air and tell me to vote for candidate D or Winchester tells me to vote for candidate R, doesn't mean I will, nor do I think many Americans will.
> 
> Why should the only groups allowed to voice their opinions the week before an election be MSNBC, Fox, and the candidates themselves?


:thumbs-up:


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> My point is that *advertising does not force anyone to purchase anything* nor does it create a need. Humans aren't slaves to whatever is advertised.


Yes. I grab your point, is this merely what it's been all along?

Advertising is never meant to _force_ people to do anything. It is designed purely to whet the appetite, peak the interest and, in more cases than you may realize, _infom_ one of a product that they theretofore had no knowledge.

Consider this: a well-known busnessman (r) here in Maine is running for governor. (_He_ is not that well-known, but his business is, which would be, among other things, part of the Boston Red Sox). I only know that he is running because of the spectacular television ad that aired the other night. I now know two things I didn't before; one, that he is running for governor and, two, that he apparently has a personality and accomplishments of which I had no idea.

Pair this with this: while in a barbor shop yesterday I thumbed through the Portland Press Herald and in the second section was a small article about the first gubernatorial Republican debate, at a church or something, where 13 of the 22 Repubs running appeared. Those 13 probably think that debate appearance was a big fat feather in their cap (and compared to the the 9 that stayed home, it probably was), but Les Auten has the big fat edge, because only he chose to put his money where his mouth should be for the next 10 months, on tv with a big fat great ad.

(Pantheos, this thread is not about car insurance, though I highly recommend GEICO.)​


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> Yes. I grab your point, is this merely what it's been all along?
> 
> Advertising is never meant to _force_ people to do anything. It is designed purely to whet the appetite, peak the interest and, in more cases than you may realize, _infom_ one of a product that they theretofore had no knowledge.
> 
> ...


Yes... it takes money to get your message out their. Exactly the reason companies, unions, non-profits, et al should be allowed to spend their money how they want to get their message out there.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> Yes... it takes money to get your message out their [sic]. Exactly the reason companies, unions, non-profits, et al should be allowed to spend their money how they want to get their message out there.


No. I do not think that Exxon Mobil, the most profitable company in the history of the world but apparently not content to be even that, should be allowed to dump bails of cash into the campaign coffers of those who would try to sweet-talk me into believing that we should drill on the North Slope. But all this is moot since the Court is currently stuffed with profit worshippers who have ruled against me.​


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Whether free speech is a good idea wasn't at issue, and the supreme court definitely got it right.
> 
> And as an aside, I think the idea that political speech is suspect and pornography or live sex shows are nearly immune from regulation as "free speech" is just absurd. But the left likes porn and hates corporations, so that's how liberal justices vote.


What do you have against porn? Like it or not, it's one of the most profitable industries.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I'm offended by the intellectual dishonesty and absurdity of an "interpretation" of the Constitution that protects pornography but not political speech.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I'm offended by the intellectual dishonesty and absurdity of an "interpretation" of the Constitution that protects pornography but not political speech.


No you're not. You're just saying that because it's the Right thing to say.​


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Sorry, it was an aside. I was only asking about why you're against pornography, but I guess that's somewhat off topic.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Jovan said:


> Sorry, it was an aside. I was only asking about why you're against pornography, but I guess that's somewhat off topic.


He did not say nor imply he was against pornography. He said twice he is against the obvious double-standard interpretation of the 1st Amendment. As it is, porn is not political speech; which is the very essence of the 1st Amendment.

I happen to disagree with reading the Constitution as protecting a corporation's rights. I think we get off track there. However, that seems to be the precedent.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Regardless of what all the Monday morning, 'armchair analysis' might conclude, it seems the bottom line is the US Supreme Court has declared the final legal definition of the Golden Rule to be, "Those who have the gold, rule"...or at the very least, determine those who will be making the rules!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The ruling wasn't about the rights of a corporation--it was about the rights of the various people invovled in one to act through it. Here's a good primer:

https://volokh.com/2010/01/21/people-organized-as-corporations-are-people-too/



> It's true, of course, that corporations "are not human beings." But their owners (the stockholders) and employees are. Human beings organized as corporations shouldn't have fewer constitutional rights than those organized as sole proprietors, partnerships, and so on. In this context, it's important to emphasize that most media organizations and political activist groups also use the corporate form. As Eugene points out, most liberals accept the idea that organizational form is irrelevant when it comes to media corporations, which were exempt from the restrictions on other corporate speech struck down by the Court today. The Supreme Court (including its most liberal justices) has repeatedly recognized that media corporations have First Amendment rights just as broad as those extended to media owned by individuals. Yet the "corporations aren't people" argument applies just as readily to media corporations as to others. After all, newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations "are not human beings" and they too "have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires." We readily reject this reasoning in the case of media corporations because we recognize that even though the corporations in question are not people, their owners and employees are. The same point applies to other corporations.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> The ruling wasn't about the rights of a corporation--it was about the rights of the various people invovled in one to act through it. Here's a good primer:
> 
> https://volokh.com/2010/01/21/people-organized-as-corporations-are-people-too/


Q: Can a corporation exist that is not owned by people?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

PedanticTurkey said:


> The ruling wasn't about the rights of a corporation--it was about the rights of the various people invovled in one to act through it. Here's a good primer:
> 
> https://volokh.com/2010/01/21/people-organized-as-corporations-are-people-too/


If the people of a state wanted to end the corporate form entirely could they do it?


----------



## flatline (Dec 22, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Q: Can a corporation exist that is not owned by people?


A group of giraffes is called a Corps....

In all seriousity though, this new precedent set by _Citizens United v FEC_ troubles me. Political Action Committees (PACs) have long existed as organizations that can represent individuals, unions, or corporations in the political arena. Prior to this ruling, corporations/unions were barred from contributing to a federal election campaign with money from their treasury. PACs mainly raised money from members/shareholders (read: individuals). Now, however, the door has been opened to allow those in control of the corp's assets to distribute them how they see fit. The biggest problem here, for me, is that this ruling allows the Few who control the corporation or union to use its assets and new freedom of speech to endorse whomever they please, without regard for all the members of the organization itself. Not all organizations are run democratically.

Take something like the UAW - do you think that all (or even most?) of its members are democrats? I don't know, but I tend to doubt it. However, the union itself is staunchly democratic and will undoubtedly start funneling more money into races it sees as important for its goals. The UAW certainly influenced politics wherever it could before this ruling, but opening up the treasury and allowing uncapped spending seems like a Bad Idea. Especially as the members, who previously could choose whether or not to contribute to a PAC, may have little or no control over the expenditures from the treasury.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (it has been known to happen from time to time).


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Q: Can a corporation exist that is not owned by people?


I tend to think that the answer is no, at least on one level or another.



CuffDaddy said:


> If the people of a state wanted to end the corporate form entirely could they do it?


Theoretically, I guess, but considering the sad state of states' rights, I doubt it would survive federal interference.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Theoretically, I guess, but considering the sad state of states' rights, I doubt it would survive federal interference.


Set aside whether it _would_ happen, I'm asking if it _could_ happen. You seem to acknowledge that any given state, or all of them, could do away with the bundle of rights/privileges/powers that is the corporate form.

Which makes sense, because corporations, unlike people, are a creation of the state. Without the state, there's no such thing as a corporation. They are a legal fiction. They are whatever the state says they are. They have the legal power to act only to the extent the state gives them that power.

My question is, can't the state refuse to give them the power of speech? There are lots of other basic rights that the states have denied to corporations but give to natural persons. For instance, corporations cannot get married. Nor do they have a right to a bifurcated jury trial before being administratively dissolved, which is capital punishment to a corporation. Many of these are constitutionally protected for individuals. Why is speech a special right of the corporate form?

How can an entity that is _solely_ a creation of positive law (legislative enactment) be beyond the power of the legislature? Isn't this judicial activism of the worst sort?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

ksinc said:


> Q: Can a corporation exist that is not owned by people?


Of course. A great number of corporations are owned by other corporations. Almost all large banks, for instance, are not owned by people, but are instead owned by bank holding companies. Which often own many other entities, too.

And if you set that aside, there are a great many corporations owned by states/nations themselves. Where those nations are not premised on the idea that the power of the state flows from the people, there's no sense in which those corporations are owned by people.

Of course, this will all make it quite easy for the Chinese government to influence American political races. They'll just set up a corporation in America which will have lots of opinions about which candidates are best (hint: the ones that are pro-China), and make lots and lots of ads for that candidate.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> Set aside whether it _would_ happen, I'm asking if it _could_ happen. You seem to acknowledge that any given state, or all of them, could do away with the bundle of rights/privileges/powers that is the corporate form.
> 
> Which makes sense, because corporations, unlike people, are a creation of the state. Without the state, there's no such thing as a corporation. They are a legal fiction. They are whatever the state says they are. They have the legal power to act only to the extent the state gives them that power.
> 
> ...


That's like saying, "The State has the power to make everybody ride at the back of the bus--then why not just black people?"


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I tend to think that the answer is no, at least on one level or another.


I think the answer is Yes. But they only teach us enough law to be truly dangerous. If you consider the possibility of 100% Treasury Stock or C-Corp joint ventures where all the stock is owned by other corporations or governments. It's true that S-Corps cannot, but Cs could. At least this is my understanding.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> Of course. A great number of corporations are owned by other corporations. Almost all large banks, for instance, are not owned by people, but are instead owned by bank holding companies. Which often own many other entities, too.
> 
> And if you set that aside, there are a great many corporations owned by states/nations themselves. Where those nations are not premised on the idea that the power of the state flows from the people, there's no sense in which those corporations are owned by people.
> 
> Of course, this will all make it quite easy for the Chinese government to influence American political races. They'll just set up a corporation in America which will have lots of opinions about which candidates are best (hint: the ones that are pro-China), and make lots and lots of ads for that candidate.


That was what I thought when I asked the question. I obviously asked it with 'malicious' intent! LOL ok, not malicious, but devious - certainly! :devil:


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

PedanticTurkey said:


> That's like saying, "The State has the power to make everybody ride at the back of the bus--then why not just black people?"


Not even close. Black people don't derive their existence from the state. They're free to ride at the front of the bus if the government is silent. A corporation can't buy speech until the government creates corprorations and gives them the right to contract for services. And the state couldn't just abolish black people. But you've already agreed, I thought, that the state _could_ abolish corporations if it wanted to.

Are you saying that this is an equal protection problem? What about the different rights of C-corps versus S-corps? Is that unconstitutional? What about that whole right to a bifurcated jury trial before capital punishment that people get - does each state's secretary of state office now need to hold multi-day trials in order to administratively disolve a corporation? If corporations can avail themselves of the rights of their constituent people, can officers or owners of corporations refuse to testify against those corporations in criminal cases? Can the corporation compel them _not_ to testify, even when they want to?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> Not even close. Black people don't derive their existence from the state. They're free to ride at the front of the bus if the government is silent.


No, the _bus _derives its existence from the state--either it's state-owned or it's licensed. So's your car--so, really, if you want to drive, the state can take away your freedom of speech? Give me a break. This argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

PedanticTurkey said:


> No, the _bus _derives its existence from the state--either it's state-owned or it's licensed. So's your car--so, really, if you want to drive, the state can take away your freedom of speech? Give me a break. This argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny.


Do you honestly mean that you can't tell the difference between a tangible item that may or may not be regulated and an intangible construct created by the state? You're smarter than that, you're just handicapped b a logically untennable position.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> Do you honestly mean that you can't tell the difference between a tangible item that may or may not be regulated and an intangible construct created by the state? You're smarter than that, you're just handicapped b a logically untennable position.


A license to operate a bus isn't an "intangible construct"? Spare me the posturing.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I'll try this one more time, but I get the sense you aren't really listening. People exist independently of the state. We are not creatures of the state. We created the state, and put limits on its ability to put limits on us.

Corporations, on the other hand, were created by the state. Their very nature is to have only the powers that the state affirmatively confers on them. Different states give them different powers. It represents quite a change in the order of things to say that the state or federal government, having created these corporation entities, now cannot take back some part of their power. 

It is a noxious turn of events. It is the science fiction writer's fear of robots run amuck wrought in legal sleight of hand. Corporations were created to serve our purposes, but now they have political rights of their own. We apparently cannot undo this turn of events, since it will be a constitutional violation. If we make a campaign issue of it and propose to change the constitution to allow it, we will be drowned in corporate "speech" that makes it impossible.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You're allowing yourself to be enslaved by a metaphor. A "corporation" is hardly an artificial person, some kind of zombie or a frankenstein's monster; it's just a form of a business organization. The idea that it has rights of its own is a legal fiction.

A corporation is an organization--a collection of people--who operate under a government license. But people do not lose their constitutional rights when they organize. They do not lose their constitutional rights when they accept a license. This has been litigated a million times. And people don't lose their rights when acting through a corporation, whether it be free speech, property rights, you name it. It's always been this way and it was good to see the supreme court reaffirm it.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

You are confusing individuals who have a license still being able to exercise their rights and those with a license being able to exercise each one of their rights _through_ that license. And you are apparently contending that government cannot condition licenses upon the acceptance of a narrower set of rights _in the use of that license_ than the licensee would have in any other circumstance, nor condition the continued use of the license on acceptance of additional restraints.

Nobody (least of all me) is saying that the owners of a corporation themselves give up free speech rights by creating a new legal fiction. But the idea that the fiction therefore has all the rights they have as individuals is nonsense. The corporation doesn't have a right to its owners' houses.

Why is it that corporations, even those wholly owned by US citizens, do not get to vote?

BTW, I'm a corporate litigation attorney. I work for corporations every day. I recognize that they are collections of individuals. But the rights we give them are separate from the rights of their owners, and they have real consequences.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Again, the state requires a license to drive a car. So, can it prohibit you from using the car for political purposes? From driving entirely if you are a member of a "suspect" demographic or party? From putting bumper stickers on your car?

But we're talking about corporations who apparently no longer enjoy constitutional protections. So:

Can the government prohibit religious worship on corporate property?

Can the government dictate that corporations must adopt a certain religious affiliation?

Can the government search corporate property without probable cause or a warrant?

Can the government take corporate property for public use without any compensation?

Hell, can the government simply take corporate property without any public use pretext?

What makes freedom of speech and the press so different that it can deprive them of those rights but not the others above?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I asked my questions first. You've answered very few of them.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

> Why is it that corporations, even those wholly owned by US citizens, do not get to vote?


For the same reason that a partnership can't vote, or an LLC, or your wife's book club. Organizations can't vote; people do. But a collection of people clearly _can_ speak or publish together.



> Are you saying that this is an equal protection problem?


No, it's an illustration to demonstrate the fallacy of your argument.



> What about the different rights of C-corps versus S-corps? Is that unconstitutional?


Irrelevant.



> What about that whole right to a bifurcated jury trial before capital punishment that people get - does each state's secretary of state office now need to hold multi-day trials in order to administratively disolve a corporation?


The idea of a corporation as a person is a metaphor, a legal fiction, a convenience for conceptualizing an abstract idea. It's not literal.



> If corporations can avail themselves of the rights of their constituent people, can officers or owners of corporations refuse to testify against those corporations in criminal cases? Can the corporation compel them _not_ to testify, even when they want to?


Nonsensical.

---

Happy?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Not remotely happy. You just wave away examples that demonstrate that corporations having the same range of rights as individuals is absurd, and not what we do, just saying they are "irrelevant" or "different." They have only the rights that the goverment gives them.

And now we have a court decision saying that there is one category of rights/power that the state _must_ give them - the power to pay others to repeat their speech. There is no logical reason that corporations cannot demand that they be given any or all of the other rights afforded to natural persons.

What we have is rampant ad hoc-ery with the judiciary making arbitrary decisions on which rights corporations must have and which ones they don't have, and striking down acts of the majority-elected representatives when they come to a different decision. Judicial activism of the sort rarely seen since the days of _Lockner_.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You are still stuck on this idea that a corporation is either a full-fledged person or a complete and utter slave to the government. It is neither. It does not have the rights of an individual because it is an organization, a collection of people. And those people have the same rights -- to speech, to property, to due process of law -- when organized as a corporation that they would have under any other form organization.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Except for all the rights that corporations don't have. 

What a bunch of gibberish. The decision was a plain old policy/preference decision not rooted in any principle that this Court will be willing to apply in different contexts. Ad hoc-ism abounds. Defending on any grounds other than "I like the result" results in nonsense.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> You are still stuck on this idea that a corporation is either a full-fledged person or a complete and utter slave to the government. It is neither. It does not have the rights of an individual because it is an organization, a collection of people. And those people have the same rights -- to speech, to property, to due process of law -- when organized as a corporation that they would have under any other form organization.


This is the problem. While you are probably legally correct at the present; a corporation is a grouping of assets; not people. Even technically speaking it is capital, land, and labor; not people that are assets. We get off in this people-first culture and I believe it is well-intentioned, but groups of people are things like associations and communities, not corporations.

This occurs for example, in non-profit formation - for example there are some non-profits that cannot exist without the people - these are associations like HOAs and mutual insurance corporations. They require people to exist - they are in fact solely groupings of people aka members. This is not true of by far the most common corporate forms. Corporations are legal entities, but we err IMHO when we assign human traits or rights to them because the stock is owned by people. Stock is not people. Equity is not people. This is much as some try to assign human traits to "the market" or "the free market". Corporate Rights should be based on property rights IMHO.

I realize this is not necessarily the case in practice; and I'm disagreeing with this idea entirely. Could the same freedom be established by this means? I think it can. People should have the right to use their property however they see fit and does not harm another whether that is because of sole or collective ownership. While some people may intuitively see harm, I don't think they can demonstrate harm unique to corporate vs. individuals. Take for example a George Soros. He does just as much through foundations as he does or could as an individual. How he spends his money to influence is really moot. The fact is: he has it; and he's going to spend it to influence political decision-making one way or the other.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Again, spare me the posturing. You couldn't even reconcile the holding you wanted with the "back of the bus" example that opened this exchange. And throughout it all you've failed to distinguish corporations in any material respect from any other form of organization. If the government required book clubs to be licensed, would your position be that it can deny them free speech? How 'bout churches or political parties?

And then you have the audacity to assert that the court's position is indefensible except in the result? Give me a break!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> What we have is rampant ad hoc-ery with the judiciary making arbitrary decisions on which rights corporations must have and which ones they don't have, and striking down acts of the majority-elected representatives when they come to a different decision. Judicial activism of the sort rarely seen since the days of _Lockner_.


Or, simply returning to the status quo which existed for decades before McCain/Fiengold??

But your way sounds much more hysterical and I like it!!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Or, simply returning to the status quo which existed for decades before McCain/Fiengold??
> 
> But your way sounds much more hysterical and I like it!!


There's a big difference between the legislature having allowed a corporate form to have a power/right versus having the courts tell the legislature that there is nothing it can ever do to take away that right. I've never refused a police officer's request for a search, but I like knowing that I can make that choice if I want. Since we don't ammend the constitution anymore, judicial decisions lock in a result for all time. Or until the makeup of the court changes (the explanation for this change).


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

ksinc said:


> This is the problem. While you are probably legally correct at the present; a corporation is a grouping of assets; not people. Even technically speaking it is capital, land, and labor; not people that are assets. We get off in this people-first culture and I believe it is well-intentioned, but groups of people are things like associations and communities, not corporations.
> 
> This occurs for example, in non-profit formation - for example there are some non-profits that cannot exist without the people - these are associations like HOAs and mutual insurance corporations. They require people to exist - they are in fact solely groupings of people aka members. This is not true of by far the most common corporate forms. Corporations are legal entities, but we err IMHO when we assign human traits or rights to them because the stock is owned by people. Stock is not people. Equity is not people. This is much as some try to assign human traits to "the market" or "the free market". Corporate Rights should be based on property rights IMHO.


This is a real head-scratcher. "Stock is not people"? So what are stockholders, then?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> This is a real head-scratcher. "Stock is not people"? So what are stockholders, then?


No; stock is not people. Stockholders are people; people who own stock.

It's not really a head scratcher unless you are making it one.

Stock is a certificate of ownership or a claim on an asset; much like a title for a car.

Are car titles people? No; they aren't. Are car owners people? Yes. These are discreet points. People who own cars have the same rights as people who don't. What they don't have is claims on a car.

Stock is private property.



> *corporate stock*
> 
> An that signifies an ownership position, or equity, in a corporation, and represents a claim on its proportionate share in the corporation's assets and profits. However, the claim to a company's assets and earnings of most stockholders is subordinated to the claim that the company's debtors have on its assets and earnings.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

This is a whole "do the ends justify the means?" issue. And I say; No. 

Meet your means by another end - private property rights. It's not as complex or complicated as some would pretend.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

ksinc said:


> No; stock is not people. Stockholders are people; people who own stock.
> 
> It's not really a head scratcher unless you are making it one.


I understand what stock is. I want to know is what difference it makes. Why do you stop at stock and not stockholders?

The only reason I can see is that you would have to to have a point.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

This might be easier to understand if you hold the actual certificates for stock; which most people do not these days. When you send for the actual stock you own; people do not show up at your house and say "Here I am!" 

Neither am I the stock; not even my S-Corp. I actually have a safety deposit box within which is a set of 500 Corporate Stock Certificates for my S-Corp business. People couldn't breathe in there! :icon_smile_big:

Maybe that removes the cloud of legalese.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

TMMKC said:


> I read a (somewhat) interesting piece in the Kansas City Star this morning that suggested the worry about what the ruling may create could very well be much ado about nothing...


When I was an undergrad, I actually worked on the case (Austin) that this case overturned. So I'm pretty (a) knowledgeable about the decision and (b) somewhat biased.

I say somewhat because from a personal standpoint, I have some trepidations about the Court's (a) voiding a law that was arguably but not clearly unconstitutional and (b) overturning not one but two decisions. To the degree the Court has been criticized on these grounds (as well as that it could have avoided the question all together) I am actually somewhat sympathetic to the Court's critics.

A few things I'd note however.

First, corporations do not and cannot (even after this decision) contribute to a candidate for federal office (and many if not most states). What this case is about is truly independent expenditures.

Next, as you mention, this may be a lot to do about nothing. Most companies won't want to get involved with putting their name behind a candidate or cause - big companies don't like controversy and little ones don't have the cash, so I'll be curious to see what the real world impact is.

Finally, the thing that seems to have everyone's knickers in a twist, the notion that corporations have first amendment rights didn't come from this case, but from a 1978 decision in which the opinion (Belloti) was authored by moderate justice Lewis Powell. Stewart, Blackmun and Stevens were also in the majority (interestingly the one guy who never bought the corporations have rights argument consistently seems to be Justice Rehnquist).

In Belloti the court struck down a similar Mass law that prohibited corporate expenditures on ballot questions as opposed to candidate elections. The court stated:



> There is no support in the First or Fourteenth Amendment, or in this Court's decisions, for the proposition that such speech loses the protection otherwise afforded it by the First Amendment simply because its source is a corporation that cannot prove, to a court's satisfaction, a material effect on its business.


The notion that corporations have first amendment rights has been settled for over 30 years. The Court has now extended the logic of Belloti to a candidate's election.

I'll add for good measure that no one's concerned about George Soros or Rupert Murdoch spending their fortunes on political ads. Also, if you don't think corporations should be able to speak on elections, perhaps we need to ban newspaper and tv/radio station endorsements as well. After all, they're just "corporations."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I understand what stock is. *I want to know is what difference it makes. Why do you stop at stock and not stockholders?*
> 
> The only reason I can see is that you would have to to have a point.


Because people exist whether or not they own stock; and they have the same rights. If I sell my stock I'm still the same person. I am not diminished in any way. Therefore; I am also not enhanced by my stock ownership. It is a thing. It is not a characteristic of me as a person. I come and go just as I am; regardless.

Say I look at it your way just because ... IF stock were people; stock-brokers would be slave-traders; No? :devil:


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

DCLawyer68 said:


> I'll add for good measure that no one's concerned about George Soros or Rupert Murdoch spending their fortunes on political ads. Also, *if you don't think corporations should be able to speak on elections, perhaps we need to ban newspaper and tv/radio station endorsements as well. After all, they're just "corporations."*


The comment above sums it all up because to me it should be all or nothing. If it is okay for MSNBC/FOX why can't it be good for GE/MICROSOFT?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Stock

Person


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Because people exist whether or not they own stock; and they have the same rights. If I sell my stock I'm still the same person. I am not diminished in any way. Therefore; I am also not enhanced by my stock ownership. It is a thing. It is not a characteristic of me as a person. I come and go just as I am; regardless.
> 
> Say I look at it your way just because ... IF stock were people; stock-brokers would be slave-traders; No? :devil:


You could say the same thing about membership in any other organization. Why is the corporation different?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> You could say the same thing about membership in any other organization. Why is the corporation different?


As previously discussed; stockholders are not necessarily members of an organization. They may be, but in 99% of cases they are not. There are only a few forms where they are and they are all special forms of non-profit corporations. That's why there are so many categories of 501s; such as 501c(1...28).

One example; 501c(4)s are organized associations of people which can participate unlimited in political activities. 501c(3)s are not; and cannot.

These are not called "Corporations." They are appropriately called "Organizations."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Asterix said:


> The comment above sums it all up because to me it should be all or nothing. If it is okay for MSNBC/FOX why can't it be good for GE/MICROSOFT?


Probably related to, Why does the WH feel the need to say "FNC is not _really_ a news organization?" :devil:


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

ksinc said:


> As previously discussed; stockholders are not necessarily members of an organization. They may be, but in 99% of cases they are not. There are only a few forms where they are and they are all special forms of non-profit corporations. That's why there are so many categories of 501s; such as 501c(1...28).


The stock represents an ownership interest in the corporation. Ownership interests are held by many people (and indeed by other organizations, but it's all people at the bottom) and allow them to work together through the corporation toward a common goal. Sounds like an organization to me.

But your position is that a corporation isn't an organization -- because stock ain't people. That makes no sense.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

By the way, "association" is the word I'm looking for, not "organization."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> The stock represents an ownership interest in the corporation. Ownership interests are held by many people (and indeed by other organizations, but it's all people at the bottom) and allow them to work together through the corporation toward a common goal. Sounds like an organization to me.
> 
> But your position is that a corporation isn't an organization -- because stock ain't people. That makes no sense.





PedanticTurkey said:


> By the way, "association" is the word I'm looking for, not "organization."


Seeing your point; Corporations and Associations are both special kinds of Organizations. But they are distinct. All Corporations are not associations. Yes; associations are groups of people. Most Corporations are not. The law, specifically tax law and corporate forms, sees it exactly this way; as I described previously. There are no limits on associations aka qualifying organizations. Again; even if I agree with your end - you cannot get there from personal free speech rights; it's property rights. I mean you can, but think about it. What you're doing is akin to arguing the 2nd Amendment is based on the need to hunt. It's based on some fact, but winning your point is a bad thing in the long run. And there is a more logical and better way to get where you want to go.

People take money or other capital contributions (services or real property) and exchange them for stock. They cannot convert people to stock or stock to people. Stock is not only NOT people; it cannot be converted to people. See the differences between Corporations vs. Partnerships for more examples. The legal entity of a Corporation is really not as obtuse as you or others want to make it. It's legal quibbling and trickery that has real consequences for private property rights; which are the true foundation of our freedom. Compare the limits on speech vs. private property; which is the more defendable?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

DCLawyer68 said:


> I'll add for good measure that no one's concerned about George Soros or Rupert Murdoch spending their fortunes on political ads.


Oh, I'm concerned about that as well.

None of the campaign finance reform laws were ever directed at speech. They were all directed at _paying someone else to repeat your speech for you_.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> ...They were all directed at _paying someone else to repeat your speech for you_.


Ban lawyers??

Now we're talkin'!!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The label that you attach to it is irrelvant; a corporation _is _an association or an organiation, irrespective of whatever special alternative definition you might have for an "Assocation" or "Organization." The fact that membership must often be purchased and is represented by ownership of shares does indeed invoke property rights, but it is irrelevant as to associative element. You're trying to obfuscate the issue by focusing on the structure.

And you're wrong in asserting that freedom of speech and the press are "personal." More precisely, they are individual rights that include or encompasses freedom of assocation and the freedom to organize or associate with others to make your voice heard. Two people have just as much of a right to speak together as they do independently.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> Oh, I'm concerned about that as well.
> 
> None of the campaign finance reform laws were ever directed at speech. They were all directed at _paying someone else to repeat your speech for you_.


Really?

They ban independent expenditures in certain contexts, as in you can't write and produce your own add copy and then run it. Is that what you mean by "paying someone else to repeat your speech for you?" Again - this case isn't about donations to candidates.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

DCLawyer68 said:


> They ban independent expenditures in certain contexts, as in you can't write and produce your own add copy and then run it. Is that what you mean by "paying someone else to repeat your speech for you?" Again - this case isn't about donations to candidates.


What does it mean to "run" your ad copy? It means paying someone else to repeat the words that you give them. You pay the TV station (or, more likely these days, one of the handful of cable providers) to turn on their machinery and have it repeat your "ad copy." (Actually, if you're serious about influencing the election, you probably paid several other people to figure out what to say, then paid an actor to say it, paid a director and editor to make it into a visually appealing 30-second spot, paid another consultant to tell you "where" to "say" what you learned you needed to say, etc.)

I haven't seen anyone suggest the first restriction on an individual's ability to speak, write, or even shout what they want. The restrictions have all been, at most, on their ability to hire others to do it for them.


----------



## flatline (Dec 22, 2008)

DCLawyer68 said:


> Really?
> 
> They ban independent expenditures in certain contexts, as in you can't write and produce your own add copy and then run it. Is that what you mean by "paying someone else to repeat your speech for you?" Again - this case isn't about donations to candidates.


OK, you seem to have a grasp of the real issues (and the underlying laws). Can you answer my questions?

Specifically, it seems that corporations are still legally prohibited from contributing directly to a candidate's campaign fund. However, they are now allowed to utilize general treasury funds to generate their own propaganda on behalf of a candidate or issue they want to support/denounce? This seems like a fairly thin line to me.

If I'm correct, under previous precedents and M/F, Citizens United could not have donated to a GOP campaign to finance the production of _Hillary: The Movie_. They were (and are) prohibited from contributing to federal elections, except to pay admin fees of any PACs they sponsor. Additionally, the standing doctrine prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech deemed "electioneering communication" or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. (D.D.C. ruled that the film was in fact made expressly to discredit Clinton's campaign). Based on the new ruling by SCOTUS, however, this ban has been overturned, essentially validating that corporations have a right to free speech as well as opening up the general treasury for such expenditures.

As I mentioned in my previous post, one of my biggest concerns is the lack in corporate law of any requirement guaranteeing shareholders a vote on political expenditures. In my opinion (and I could be wrong), this decision almost supersedes the freedom of speech of union members/shareholders if their organization elects, against their wishes, to spend their contributions (dues or what have you) on political endorsements/mud-slinging films.

This concern is followed closely by my fear that corporations will become recognized sovereign entities, able to write and enforce their own laws using their own armed forces.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

flatline said:


> Specifically, it seems that corporations are still legally prohibited from contributing directly to a candidate's campaign fund. However, they are now allowed to utilize general treasury funds to generate their own propaganda on behalf of a candidate or issue they want to support/denounce? This seems like a fairly thin line to me.
> 
> This concern is followed closely by my fear that corporations will become recognized sovereign entities, able to write and enforce their own laws using their own armed forces.


1) For a thin line, you seemed to define it rather succinctly.

2) I want to marry Exxon. Try and stop me!!


----------



## flatline (Dec 22, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) For a thin line, you seemed to define it rather succinctly.
> 
> 2) I want to marry Exxon. Try and stop me!!


The thin line being the distinction between contributing directly to a candidate's campaign coffers, and producing election propaganda independently. In the end, either one results in money being spent to further the election of a political figure.

I didn't say it's a gray area or a blurry line - it's just, to me, a small distinction.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> What does it mean to "run" your ad copy? It means paying someone else to repeat the words that you give them. You pay the TV station (or, more likely these days, one of the handful of cable providers) to turn on their machinery and have it repeat your "ad copy." (Actually, if you're serious about influencing the election, you probably paid several other people to figure out what to say, then paid an actor to say it, paid a director and editor to make it into a visually appealing 30-second spot, paid another consultant to tell you "where" to "say" what you learned you needed to say, etc.)
> 
> I haven't seen anyone suggest the first restriction on an individual's ability to speak, write, or even shout what they want. The restrictions have all been, at most, on their ability to hire others to do it for them.


So if someone broadcasts their message that's not first amendment speech in your view? Just want to make sure I understand it. "Speech" means only one person talking to another?


----------



## flatline (Dec 22, 2008)

DCLawyer68 said:


> So if *someone* broadcasts their message that's not first amendment speech in your view? Just want to make sure I understand it. "Speech" means only one person talking to another?


For me, a corporation isn't a "someone" (if anything, it's someones). If an individual wants to donate money to a candidate's campaign, whether directly or through a PAC or even by independently stumping for them, that's fine.

I start to have issues when a corporation, made up of many shareholders, officers, and employees, begins using "its" money (which really, to me, belongs to the aforementioned parties) for such purposes. A corporation, and it's directors, has an obligation to the shareholders, to make decisions that are in the best interests of the shareholders. I'm sure one could make some type of case wherein spending large amounts of money from general funds _is_ in the best interests of the business, but I'm uncomfortable with that notion, as interfering/influencing politics should _NOT_, in my opinion, be a matter of business. Especially when the views/wishes of the shareholders/employees might differ from those controlling the pursestrings, or what is deemed "best" for the "business".

I don't like the government interfering overly in the affairs of businesses. I _really_ don't like the idea of businesses interfering in the affairs of the government.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> The label that you attach to it is irrelvant; a corporation _is _an association or an organiation, irrespective of whatever special alternative definition you might have for an "Assocation" or "Organization." The fact that membership must often be purchased and is represented by ownership of shares does indeed invoke property rights, but it is irrelevant as to associative element. You're trying to obfuscate the issue by focusing on the structure.
> 
> And you're wrong in asserting that freedom of speech and the press are "personal." More precisely, they are individual rights that include or encompasses freedom of assocation and the freedom to organize or associate with others to make your voice heard. Two people have just as much of a right to speak together as they do independently.


It's not a label *I* am attaching to it. *I* do not have an _alternative_ definition. I'm quoting the Code. This is a principle in corporate formation law.

However, I would like to say Thanks for *your* baseless accusations. Your methods and lack of substantiation speak volumes. And that will save me from having to respond further.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

ksinc said:


> It's not a label *I* am attaching to it. *I* do not have an _alternative_ definition. I'm quoting the Code. This is a principle in corporate formation law.
> 
> However, I would like to say Thanks for *your* baseless accusations. Your methods and lack of substantiation speak volumes. And that will save me from having to respond further.












Gotcha.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

flatline said:


> For me, a corporation isn't a "someone" (if anything, it's someones). If an individual wants to donate money to a candidate's campaign, whether directly or through a PAC or even by independently stumping for them, that's fine.


I get that - I am trying to determine though whether the argument is whether "speech" literally means only one person speaking to another, and does not go beyond that, e.g. a person taking out an ad in a newspaper. That seemed to be the implication of the post I was addressing.

We can't bar individuals from spending what they want on "speech" so long as its with their own money. We can limit how much they donate to a candidate. That's the _Buckley_ case.

Corporations have first amendment rights, including the right to spend advocating on ballot initiatives. That's _Belotti._

That Buckley+Belotti = corporations can spend independently on candidate elections is what the Court said in _Citizens United._

You may have problems with corporations spending its funds on political speech, but the thrust of the criticism I've heard is better directed not at the recent Citizens United case, but the _Bellotti_ case, which was supported by pretty centrist Justices and is 31 years old.


----------



## flatline (Dec 22, 2008)

I guess I tend to agree with the sentiments of the esteemed Chief Justice Marshall, as cited in Rehnquist's dissent on _Bellotti_.


> "A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created." Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 636 (1819).


Rehnquist continues:
Furthermore, it might be argued that liberties of political expression are not at all necessary to effectuate the purposes for which States permit commercial corporations to exist. So long as the Judicial Branches of the State and Federal Governments remain open to protect the corporation's interest in its property, it has no need, though it may have the desire, to petition the political branches for similar protection. Indeed, the States might reasonably fear that the corporation would use its economic power to obtain further benefits beyond those already bestowed.
I can see no basis for concluding that the liberty of a corporation to engage in political activity with regard to matters having no material effect on its business is necessarily incidental to the purposes for which the Commonwealth permitted these corporations to be organized or admitted within its boundaries.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

DCLawyer68 said:


> I get that - I am trying to determine though whether the argument is whether "speech" literally means only one person speaking to another, and does not go beyond that, e.g. a person taking out an ad in a newspaper. That seemed to be the implication of the post I was addressing.
> 
> We can't bar individuals from spending what they want on "speech" so long as its with their own money. We can limit how much they donate to a candidate. That's the _Buckley_ case.
> 
> ...





flatline said:


> I guess I tend to agree with the sentiments of the esteemed Chief Justice Marshall, as cited in Rehnquist's dissent on _Bellotti_.
> Rehnquist continues:
> Furthermore, it might be argued that liberties of political expression are not at all necessary to effectuate the purposes for which States permit commercial corporations to exist. So long as the Judicial Branches of the State and Federal Governments remain open to protect the corporation's interest in its property, it has no need, though it may have the desire, to petition the political branches for similar protection. Indeed, the States might reasonably fear that the corporation would use its economic power to obtain further benefits beyond those already bestowed.
> I can see no basis for concluding that the liberty of a corporation to engage in political activity with regard to matters having no material effect on its business is necessarily incidental to the purposes for which the Commonwealth permitted these corporations to be organized or admitted within its boundaries.


Yes; those quotes make a lot of sense, but we are apparently stuck with such a flawed decision because the judges made case law?! 

It seems obvious, to me, that a corporate asset used to communicate a political thought is only a vehicle for the exercise of an actual person's right to free speech - not a corporation's right to free speech. For example, the control of an asset may be assigned to officers of a corporation that have no ownership in it or loaned for consideration - to a paid advertiser. When someone pays for a political ad are they exercising their own right or that of the corporation? Again, it seems obvious they are not borrowing the right of the corporation, but simply utilizing assets to exercise their own right.

But however long it is (31 years you say?) we seem to have judges that like to perpetuate their predecessors errors. As an outside observer to the legal process I wish they demonstrated that they respected legislation as much as they do case law. Perhaps they do, but that's not my perception.

OTOH they don't ask me...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

What do you think about the Tebow/NFL/CBS situation?

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2612635220100126


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

flatline said:


> I guess I tend to agree with the sentiments of the esteemed Chief Justice Marshall, as cited in Rehnquist's dissent on _Bellotti_.
> Rehnquist continues:
> Furthermore, it might be argued that liberties of political expression are not at all necessary to effectuate the purposes for which States permit commercial corporations to exist. So long as the Judicial Branches of the State and Federal Governments remain open to protect the corporation's interest in its property, it has no need, though it may have the desire, to petition the political branches for similar protection. Indeed, the States might reasonably fear that the corporation would use its economic power to obtain further benefits beyond those already bestowed.
> I can see no basis for concluding that the liberty of a corporation to engage in political activity with regard to matters having no material effect on its business is necessarily incidental to the purposes for which the Commonwealth permitted these corporations to be organized or admitted within its boundaries.


That's certainly a valid argument and I don't necessarily even disagree with it frankly.

The dumbest thing written to date on this issue was the New York Times' editorial the day after the case:



> The Citizens United ruling is likely to be viewed as a shameful bookend to Bush v. Gore. With one 5-to-4 decision, the court's conservative majority stopped valid votes from being counted to ensure the election of a conservative president. Now a similar conservative majority has distorted the political system to ensure that Republican candidates will be at an enormous advantage in future elections.


My point is this - if what your upset about is the notion that corporations are citizens with first amendment rights, entitled to participate in the political process, your real complaint isn't with "the conservative majority" - it's with five justices (now all perceived to be moderate to liberal for the most part) writing over 30 years ago.

People are acting as if this concept didn't exist until a few days ago.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

DCLawyer68 said:


> My point is this - if what your upset about is the notion that corporations are citizens with first amendment rights, entitled to participate in the political process, your real complaint isn't with "the conservative majority" - it's with five justices (now all perceived to be moderate to liberal for the most part) writing over 30 years ago.
> 
> People are acting as if this concept didn't exist until a few days ago.


Exactly; well said. That was my first point when I said I didn't agree with the concept of conferring them, but it seemed to be precedent. Thanks for pointing out the particular case. I think now we are just living with the long term consequences of such a decision.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

ksinc said:


> Yes; those quotes make a lot of sense, but we are apparently stuck with such a flawed decision because the judges made case law?!
> 
> But however long it is (31 years you say?) we seem to have judges that like to perpetuate their predecessors errors. As an outside observer to the legal process I wish they demonstrated that they respected legislation as much as they do case law. Perhaps they do, but that's not my perception.
> 
> OTOH they don't ask me...


The Court could have followed the _Austin_ precedent (1990) and the _McConnell_ precedent (2003) in this regard, in which said they that (a) corporations do have first amendment rights but (b) the state has a compelling interest in keeping corporate money out of the public sphere that trumps the first amendment in this case.

Instead, the Court decided to chuck these two more recent decisions on this issue, so _Citizens United_ actually IS a case of the Court saying "we believe x - and we're going to chuck what we think is bad precedent that contravenes it."


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

ksinc said:


> Exactly; well said. That was my first point when I said I didn't agree with the concept of conferring them, but it seemed to be precedent. Thanks for pointing out the particular case. I think now we are just living with the long term consequences of such a decision.


Apparently, on this point, the New York Times ed board are all Rehnquestians now. :icon_smile_big:

If they actually had any idea what they were talking about, I'm sure this would bother them a great deal.


----------

