6 ms·

You're right to say that Citizen United does not change how we view campaign finance as protected speech for humans. I definitely was wrong and unclear on that

by ashley 17y ago

You're right to say that Citizen United does not change how we view campaign finance as protected speech for humans. I definitely was wrong and unclear on that point, but I respectfully disagree about the implications of the Citizens United ruling: my point is that this ruling sets the stage for allowing undue power to corporations, both non-profit and for-profit. Corporations are not living beings with unalienable rights, so we should not have worried that limiting their speech would have implications for us human beings. For Scalia being such a conservative reader of the law, he certainly took a highly judicial activist position in this ruling. excerpted from the article: In vivid contrast, the majority overruled a 19-year-old precedent (Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce) that had lambasted the corporation, when it entered the political arena, because of ”the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public’s suport for the corporation’s political ideas.” The problem with treating corporations as if they have a "right" to free speech and freedom of association is that they have a disproportionate amount of influence arising from their sheer size and aggregated wealth. We have other mechanisms to ensure that size and wealth do not override the voices of the small and poor in elections (look at how the Senate is constructed versus the House or how we have the electoral college to ensure that wealthier coastal states do not decide presidential elections). And also, the fact that we grant any rights to corporations at all arises from a court stenographer's foot-note that later opened up loopholes for clever (although might I add shortsighted) lawyers in subsequent cases that eventually snowballed into granting rights to this nebulous entity. As Justice Stevens noted in his dissent to the Citizens United ruling, "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 its creation confers upon it.” And yet, we worried that limiting the financial power of corporations will potentially infringe upon OUR (human) 1st Amendment rights. That is the problem for me. We created the corporate entity like a machine to serve our purposes; it does not exist with unalienable rights as we human beings do. Who donates the most to campaigns, 501(3)(c) non-profits and charities or Fortune 1000 corporations whose explicit purpose is to generate profits for stakeholders?

hga 17y ago
You might be right as a matter of policy (I don't think so, but it's a debatable point), but as a Constitutional issue it's pretty clear to me and the majority of the Supremes that the right of groups of people who happen to speak through a corporation is strongly protected by the First Amendment. Or, let's say, take your position to an extreme: that would entail forbidding the New York Times Corporation from publishing on politics. I'll note that they are the plaintiffs in two important First Amendment cases, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan) and New York Times Co. v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_St...), the first defined modern era libel case law and the second was WRT the Pentagon Papers. Or does the provision for freedom of the press somehow carve out an exception for these "immense aggregations of wealth" (well, before the decline and fall of the MSM really got started). As for donations, both 501 (c) (3) non-profits and companies are explicitly forbidden from donating to campaigns, they have to have individuals do it through a PAC.
- ashley 17y ago
  "As a Constitutional issue it's pretty clear to me and the majority of the Supremes" - that depends upon what kind of philosophy you take on approaching the role of the Supreme Court, activism to change policy versus narrow interpretation of the Constitution. It's simplistic to say that Citizens United ruling is simply a matter of suppression vs. free speech, as Buckley v. Valeo has nuanced to what extent "money" constitutes speech. As Justice Stevens writes in his dissent, "At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics." Several people have cited examples of free speech and the press. The Citizens United ruling lifts restrictions of corporate spending in political ads during election campaigns with in-house corporate treasury funds, i.e. unfettered free speech at any time. Rather than looking at NYT Co v. Sullivan, look Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce's interpretation. http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/updates/the_supreme_court.html?AID=1457 http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/updates/the_supreme_cour... Excerpted: "Austin’s critics aspire to dissolve all this complexity into a simplistic choice between speech and suppression. In attacking the "political support" language of Austin, they take it to be something strange, an import into the jurisprudence of a notion at odds with core First Amendment values. What they miss is its surprising ordinariness. The Austin case was getting at something important, even—one could say—basic to the mechanisms within the campaign finance laws for isolating the corruptive threat of aggregated group or associational spending." I'm not arguing that corporations be denied their political speech via spending, which was outside of the case ruling anyway. Free speech is controlled in very specific cases because of its potential injurious impacts - libel, safety, individuals versus entities, etc. What I take issue with is the extent of power given to special interest groups and lobbyists that override the interests of individual citizens. Is there a difference between groups of people coming together and pooling their money to form a PAC and group of people expressing political views of an entire corporation using corporation treasury funds? And if you want to go into fringe, extreme positions: what about tax-paying subsidiaries in the US headed by groups of American citizens, but owned by foreign corporations? Should they not then be entitled to equal free speech in our elections? In any case, it will be interesting to see what comes of the ruling, and thanks for highlighting those two cases.

by ashley 17y ago

hga 17y ago

You might be right as a matter of policy (I don't think so, but it's a debatable point), but as a Constitutional issue it's pretty clear to me and the majority of the Supremes that the right of groups of people who happen to speak through a corporation is strongly protected by the First Amendment. Or, let's say, take your position to an extreme: that would entail forbidding the New York Times Corporation from publishing on politics. I'll note that they are the plaintiffs in two important First Amendment cases, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan) and New York Times Co. v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_St...), the first defined modern era libel case law and the second was WRT the Pentagon Papers. Or does the provision for freedom of the press somehow carve out an exception for these "immense aggregations of wealth" (well, before the decline and fall of the MSM really got started). As for donations, both 501 (c) (3) non-profits and companies are explicitly forbidden from donating to campaigns, they have to have individuals do it through a PAC.

ashley 17y ago
"As a Constitutional issue it's pretty clear to me and the majority of the Supremes" - that depends upon what kind of philosophy you take on approaching the role of the Supreme Court, activism to change policy versus narrow interpretation of the Constitution. It's simplistic to say that Citizens United ruling is simply a matter of suppression vs. free speech, as Buckley v. Valeo has nuanced to what extent "money" constitutes speech. As Justice Stevens writes in his dissent, "At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics." Several people have cited examples of free speech and the press. The Citizens United ruling lifts restrictions of corporate spending in political ads during election campaigns with in-house corporate treasury funds, i.e. unfettered free speech at any time. Rather than looking at NYT Co v. Sullivan, look Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce's interpretation. http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/updates/the_supreme_court.html?AID=1457 http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/updates/the_supreme_cour... Excerpted: "Austin’s critics aspire to dissolve all this complexity into a simplistic choice between speech and suppression. In attacking the "political support" language of Austin, they take it to be something strange, an import into the jurisprudence of a notion at odds with core First Amendment values. What they miss is its surprising ordinariness. The Austin case was getting at something important, even—one could say—basic to the mechanisms within the campaign finance laws for isolating the corruptive threat of aggregated group or associational spending." I'm not arguing that corporations be denied their political speech via spending, which was outside of the case ruling anyway. Free speech is controlled in very specific cases because of its potential injurious impacts - libel, safety, individuals versus entities, etc. What I take issue with is the extent of power given to special interest groups and lobbyists that override the interests of individual citizens. Is there a difference between groups of people coming together and pooling their money to form a PAC and group of people expressing political views of an entire corporation using corporation treasury funds? And if you want to go into fringe, extreme positions: what about tax-paying subsidiaries in the US headed by groups of American citizens, but owned by foreign corporations? Should they not then be entitled to equal free speech in our elections? In any case, it will be interesting to see what comes of the ruling, and thanks for highlighting those two cases.