Well, that'll make the next election exciting. Thank goodness I have a TIVO.

heh. once again...we need to get the money OUT of politics, not more money back into it

Agreed, they just have to try to figure out how to get around that pesky Constitution.

i know that's supposed to be sarcasm.

but the easy answer is that the Constitution is a living document, subject to amendment, etc. And it was written at a time when there was no inkling of the amount of money corporations would have available.

Frankly I think the "Founding Fathers" would be shocked if they could see us now, still trying to live in lockstep with something that they wrote over 200 years ago. They'd probably be first in line to tear it up and write another one, or amend the hell out of it.

They would probably be shocked at the size of the government more so.

/ducks

Stevens himself makes a good argument in his dissent that there was no actual "ban", seeing as corporations and unions can and have formed PACs.

It's a good argument. Just for discussion sake, here's the majority opinion response to that:
....

Even if a PAC could somehow allow a corporation to speak—and it does not—the option to form PACs does not alleviate the First Amendment problems with §441b. PACs are burdensome alternatives; they are expensive to administer and subject to extensive regulations. For example, every PAC must appoint a treasurer, forward donations to the treasurer promptly, keep detailed records of the identities of the persons making donations, preserve receipts for three years, and file an organization statement and report changes to this information within 10 days.See id., at 330–332 (quoting MCFL, 479 U. S., at 253– 254).

And that is just the beginning. PACs must file detailed monthly reports with the FEC, which are due at different times depending on the type of election that is about to occur:

“‘These reports must contain information regarding the amount of cash on hand; the total amount of re-ceipts, detailed by 10 different categories; the identification of each political committee and candidate’s authorized or affiliated committee making contributions, and any persons making loans, providing rebates, re-funds, dividends, or interest or any other offset to op-erating expenditures in an aggregate amount over $200; the total amount of all disbursements, detailed by 12 different categories; the names of all authorized or affiliated committees to whom expenditures aggregating over $200 have been made; persons to whom loan repayments or refunds have been made; the total sum of all contributions, operating expenses, outstanding debts and obligations, and the settlement terms of the retirement of any debt or obligation.’” 540 U. S., at 331–332 (quoting MCFL, supra, at 253– 254).

PACs have to comply with these regulations just to speak. This might explain why fewer than 2,000 of the millions of corporations in this country have PACs.

PACs, furthermore, must exist before they can speak. Given the onerous restrictions, a corporation may not be able to establish a PAC in time to make its views known regarding candidates and issues in a current campaign.

Section 441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is thus a ban on speech. As a “restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend onpolitical communication during a campaign,” that statute “necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.” Buck-ley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 19 (1976) (per curiam). Were the Court to uphold these restrictions, the Government could repress speech by silencing certain voices at any of the various points in the speech process. See McConnell, supra, at 251 (opinion of SCALIA, J.) (Government couldrepress speech by “attacking all levels of the production
and dissemination of ideas,” for “effective public communication requires the speaker to make use of the services of others”).

If §441b applied to individuals, no one would believe that it is merely a time, place, or manner restriction on speech. Its purpose and effect are to silence entities whose voices the Government deems to be suspect.

I agree that we should be trying to get money out of politics--I don't think it's particularly healthy for good government.

But, I view the Constitution as more important to uphold than my own thoughts on the matter. We treat corporate entities as persons under the law. The first amendment gives us the right to free speech. Being unable to express your message on the airwaves (regulated by government) seems to be unworkable with the right to free speech. It's not like we're talking about giving money to a candidate, which seems to be more than just the ability to speak. We're talking about the ability for a corporation to advocate their own politics.

So why not amend the Constitution to not treat corporate entities as persons?

I'm still trying to figure out where teh constitution says corporations HAVE rights at all? They are not citizens in and of themselves, they are creations, fronts....figureheads...nothing but names with huge amounts of money behind them.

As a shareholder there are more than enough avenues for you to put your money to use for your candidate or against another one without resorting to multiplying any one groups speaking power by magnitudes of 10 just because they bought a $5 share in subcutaneous alcohol delivery systems LLC.

Corporations do not have free speech, corporations are regulated entities, not free citizens.

This ruling is going to fuck this country hard.

Way to go SCotUS

Or undo some of the amendments it already has.

I'm not even going to go there because we all know where that would end up. :popcorn:

Just pointin' out the possibilities, that's all.

I think they'd be even more shocked at how society has changed -- good & bad -- far more than they would at the lifespan of the document.

See Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Tom Logan (Nov. 12, 1816), in 12 The Works of Thomas Jefferson 42, 44 (P. Ford ed. 1905) ("I hope we shall . . . crush in [its] birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country").

:lol: well which amendments would you like to see repealed? 4? 5? 6? 13? 15? 19?

Here though, the corporations aren't defying the laws of the country, they're asking that Congress be bound by the 1st amendment in enacting laws

I don't like it either, but I'm sure Jefferson would be even more surprised that the 4th amendment applies to foreign terrorists who have never set foot in the U.S, or that there's a federal right to abortion.

The constitution is basically like the bible, it can be used to support or oppose almost anything. It's like this legal fiction standing in the way of the real debate.

The power is with the appellate courts. They decide how they want the laws to be (or not be), and then humor us with a "constitutional analysis"

Me? Or them? 'Cause the list is likely different in some cases.

I'd honestly be more likely to start with 16 and then go after 24 or 26 next.
And then I'd have to brush up considerably on what actually falls under 14 to see whether it would make the list.

I see what you're doing with that statement .... you're a multi-millionaire and hiding behind the English language admit it ;)

I meant you. I was genuinely curious.

So you're in favor of poll taxes? Poll taxes which were historically introduced after Reconstruction to restrict the ability of black people to vote? I see. I suppose that's not really surprising.

Income tax...I suppose that is the "popular" one, but without an income tax you raise a whole host of other issues as far as paying for the governmental services you do want (whatever those may be - I know you're not a libertarian, so there are SOME).

14th Amendement: defines citizenship, due process clause & due process rights, Equal Protection Clause.

I guess I wouldn't be surprised you'd be against those "liberal" types of things either.

16 then 24? abolish one tax and then allow another one?

He never said he made sense...

:lol:

That would be fine. I would be for or against all kinds of possible amendments, but once it's there, it has to be respected. Also, states could amend their corporate laws--I believe all consider corporations as persons, but if they do not then it could be an interesting case.

try reading 24...
It is not a tax, it makes it illegal to prohibit voting rights to people who dont pay appropriate taxes.

poll taxes...which were used during reconstruction and jim crow to disenfranchise poor blacks in the south.

so all of a sudden we're going back to a system where only rich people can vote? I know Jon would probably be in favor of that, but I think it's pretty sleezy.

We've already got it with folks who can afford lobbyists writing the laws and taking away your vote's power.

But I can certainly see making an argument that those who only take from society should not be allowed to control the folks who give them their handouts. That's a far cry from saying only the rich can vote.

This decision really disappoints me. I have real difficulty with the equation money = speech.

Perhaps we need an amendment allowing congress to legislate 'regulations for'/'restrictions on' campaign finance.

Damn the Activist Judges! Even the conservative ones.

Every single vote was based on political/personal beliefs about this subject, just like almost every post in this thread is based on political/personal beliefs, rather than an actual, honest, interpretation of the constitution/laws at issue.

I did too, but by limiting the ability to spend money, you limit their ability to spread their political views. How else can they do it without spending money?

companies shouldn't be spreading their political views. it essentially gives them 2x the "speech." they have employees...the employees have views. the employees can and should contribute to candidates. upper management can contribute to whatever candidates they feel will best help the company.

Exactly. A Company doesn't have political views at all. Its employees MAY, but what right do those employees have to have a bigger louder more expensive say in the political universe than joe smuck sitting at home? Just because the company has more money to throw around doesn't justify them having a larger more visible say in government at all.

Wrong. About as completely wrong as humanly possibly in fact.

I can see both sides of it. A company does have political views, and insofar as that company pays corporate taxes I suppose it has a right to have those views heard (I think a lot of companies don't pay anywhere close to what they should in corporate taxes, but that's another argument).

The problem is that there's too much money in politics anyways...I'm for 100% publicly funded campaigns (and sure they might not have as much money and might be smaller in scope, but I doubt very many would complain about that), and getting all the lobbyist money out of the pockets of the politicians. So if that's my stance then yeah, corporations shouldn't have a right to make their political voice heard any louder than you or I (who under my system wouldn't be donating to candidates anyways).

That way we'd get politicians who care about service instead of lining their own pockets, and perhaps we get a government that's actually more responsive to the populace.

At least that's the idea.

I'm gonna flip your comment out of sequence a little because what I'm getting at is easier to highlight that way.


Presumably however you aren't naive enough to believe that's how it would actually work.


The lobbyist money is a means to an end: getting re-elected. It isn't the reason they want to be re-elected in the first place. And where there's a demand, there will generally be a supply. Nothing about the lobby money, nor corporate money used for campaign purposes has anything to do with "caring about service", they'll just find another way to utilize the suddenly available dollars.

Shareholders buy into corporations...they are the owners. Shareholders pay money into the corporation make profits. Thus, the money they put into the corporation is money they no longer have for donating to campaigns. They have the right to either a) take back all of the money, or b) use some of the money they make to help make more money. Because corporations are so big, in many cases the board of directors hires managers to make many of these decisions. Corporations only have to answer to the shareholders--they don't represent you or me, they represent their interests.

Also, how is this much different than being a "Friend of Candidate", donating to their campaign, and having the campaign pay for its commercials. What about the ACLU? Why give their members "2x the speech"?

If you don't like a whole lot of money in politics, that's fine. I don't particularly like it much either. But, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not protected speech.

Sounds like you don't like unions advocating for things either.

i'm not saying that it's not protected speech currently. i think that's stilll debatable either way, but i'm not interested in that argument. i'm arguing that the laws should be changed so that it wouldn't be.

As a side note, I was reading a bit more about the case and discovered Citizen's United had a longer name originally. Citizen's United Not Timid.

Classy group to do a Hillary attack movie.

No, I don;t because the union is collecting money from a myriad of people not ALL of which hold the same precise beliefs. The union using its general funds to back any single candidate is not promoting the beliefs of its entire membership and is actively working against some of them, thereby taking away those persons rights to have the unions bigger stronger voice support THEIR candidate.

A Company is a THING jon, it is not a person, it is not a group of people, it is an inanimate and in most cases IMAGINARY creation of human beings. A single citizen of this nation can have a political view, many such human beings can sometimes even have the SAME political view.

A Company cannot.

A Company has no place putting its funds into politicians pockets.

People certainly can. Allowing a company to use its much larger deeper purses to promote the political agenda of a few people who are employed at the company is wrong. It artificially inflates those few peoples voices in the discussion while at the same time dissallowing the views of anyone employed there who disagrees with that view. It is in and of itself the antithesis of Free Speech.

Every single person/citizen in this country has the right and I daresay the responsibility to promote their political beliefs. Equally, 1 voice for 1 person. The campaign laws should support this instead of allowing politicians to become little more than bought and stuffed puppets with the board of directors hands stuck up their ass.

Render, I'm not even sure there's anything in your post that was actually correct once you get past part of the first sentence.

But rave all you want, we're kind of used to it around here.

If you disagree thats fine, doesn't make me wrong, just makes me 1 less person in agreement.

If you believe a company or corporation IS in fact a living breathing person with the right to sway politics, then support your opinion. Otherwise you're sort of blowing smoke in the air and wasting our time.

This isn't about what the laws state right now, this is about the reality that a company or corporation is not a REAL PERSON and is nothing more than a paperwork representation of a group of people who all get paid from the same bank account. It is in fact an IMAGINARY CREATION of one or more people to represent their business. Businesses aren't citizens, businesses cannot vote. WHy then should they be allowed to pour billions of dollars into politicians pockets?

Well, I would argue that a corporation isn't advocating the political views of its employees at all. It is advocating the believes that will make the shareholders of the corporation more money. This decision does not allow corporations to "line the pockets of politicians." It allows the corporations to spend money advocating for a candidate, presumably one that it feels would give it the best chance to make more money for its owners. If it picked one that was not going to give it a better chance to make money then either a) they made a misguided decision on who to support, or b) the directors/managers ought to be fired because they are spending the shareholders' money improperly and could find themselves to be the defendants in a shareholder derivative action.

I just got back into the country a couple of days ago but saw this decision. The person I talked to in Colombia about it couldn't understand how the decision even makes sense in the least. That made two of us. I'm strongly with Render on this- a company should not have these rights and I think it opens up many very bad possibilities.

I made my points much earlier in the thread and I still don't understand how people in corporations should essentially get double rights to free speech. The individuals who make up a corporation are not having their free speech impinged so I don't see how they should get an opportunity to doubly extend those dollars both as an individual *and* as a corporation. Then again, I believe in one person/one vote, not one dollar/one vote.

I also see a extreme possibility for conflicts of interest- "You know, Bob, our corporation supports candidate X but I see in the tax filings for his opponent, candidate Y, that you supported him. I think it's time for your yearly review".

It's pretty clear that no only do we have 5 Supreme Court justices who will strongly side with big business. But also that those beliefs also extend to that while they don't support government being big, they're perfectly ok with businesses being big.

Government is either going to be dominated by business or dominate business, in a lot of people's minds. It seems like it's an either/or option- you have to either have big business or big government (which regulates businesses). The cognitive dissonance to me is that a lot of the supporters of smaller government are perfectly ok with unfettered size and power for business, which essentially will just mean that business will function as the government. So, in short, they rightfully decry a tyrannical government but are perfectly ok with being ruled by a tyrannical corporation.

SI

As though that doesn't exist now?

Hell, I can tell you the contribution status of most people I've had major dealings with over at least the last decade and I think it's fair to say that I'm not exactly a big spender nor a big corporation.

Definitely something that happens now, I had to take a Business Ethics course a while back and a good portion of it was about troubles I believe Wal-Mart was having with allegedly doing just that with votes. It's a pretty grey area.

Now as to this thread, am I the only one who originally thought this was about a soccer match?

Nope, you're not alone.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen and Sen. Chuck Schumer are planning to introduce legislation in both chambers next week to blunt the effect of the Citizens United case.

According to the summary, obtained by The Washington Post, the legislation would require corporate chief executives or group leaders to publicly attach their names to ads, much like political candidates are required to do. It would also mandate disclosure of major donors whose money is used for "campaign-related activity."

The latter measure would require powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for the first time to identify the companies that fund its political-related spending.

The measure would also tighten political restrictions on foreign-based corporations, which would be defined as any company that has 20 percent foreign voting shares, a majority of foreign directors or a foreign national leading U.S. operations. If enacted into law, that provision could affect a significant number of familiar companies, including Budweiser, T-Mobile and Research in Motion.

Other provisions would mandate public disclosure of political spending and would bar companies that receive federal contracts worth more than $50,000 from spending money to influence federal elections, the summary says.



American actually are pretty angry, and still hate the Citizens United decision. Really hate it. You don't see 79% majorities on much these days.

I'm pretty happy with pretty much all of the bill as stated there.

SI