5 ms·

As a not American, why does freedom of speech include corporations giving money that are not citizens nor talking. But even that Congress has the power to spend

As a not American, why does freedom of speech include corporations giving money that are not citizens nor talking. But even that Congress has the power to spend "to provide for the common defence and general welfare" given by the constitution it still not a right to receive any of that. I have a feeling that there is a interpretation bias in favor of corporations over human life.

delecti 9d ago
I think the first amendment quite reasonably protects people making donations to political causes. The "speech" protections aren't limited to literal vocalizations, but also applause, writing, displaying signs, etc. And it also protects assembly, and donating to a political organization is a reasonable part of joining or supporting a cause. It does not have to protect corporations making those same donations; congress could remove donations from the list of powers granted to a corporation, and there's an effort in some states to do just that (it'll be on the ballot this fall in Montana). As for the second point, congress has that power, but not an obligation to do so. Congress could pass a law aimed at ensuring access to clean water, but not every law congress could pass has been passed. If congress passed such a law, a plain reading of that sentence would support the law being constitutional.
- rbanffy 9d ago
  > it'll be on the ballot this fall in Montana There are reasons to be optimistic.
- rassimmoc 9d ago
  Not from US and not a lawyer, but for me it makes sense for 'speech' to include writing, signs, etc... But not money. I think it should only include what every person has same of as every other person. We all can communicate, write, display signs,.... But not everyone can donate millions/billions
  - db48x 9d ago
    Take heart in the fact that spending more money does not guarantee a win. The Harris campaign spent over a billion dollars in 2024 and she lost badly. She spent more than 2.5× as much as Trump.
didgeoridoo 9d ago
Because without protection of collective speech, there is no principled way to protect the freedom of the press. The Citizens United case affirmed that a private group could collectively spend money to produce and distribute a movie attacking Hillary Clinton during her campaign. The problem is, if you want to stop those people from spending money to influence the outcome of elections, you must also forbid the New York Times from doing so. That means no investigative journalism, no exposés of candidates, no endorsements or political op-eds. Ink and paper cost money, and that money is spent by a corporation. (And, if you succeed in letting newspapers have a regulatory carve-out, then all you’ve done is make them tasty acquisition targets for those same corporate interests you just tried to restrict.) I think unlimited spending on political messaging has poisoned our politics and our culture, but I think that’s downstream of a lot of other factors — the loss of social cohesion, weakening of civil society and institutions, and the growth of federal power raising the stakes of elections. Restricting speech won’t solve these issues. I’m not sure what will.
zdragnar 9d ago
It's the difference between a "negative" and a "positive" right. The former is something that government cannot do (compel or prohibit speech) whereas a positive right is something the government is obligated to provide (clean water). Many people- most, in the early days- had private wells, and do not in any way "get" water from the government at all. It wouldn't make sense for such a thing to be in the Constitution. Even now, the water at my house comes from a well in my basement. What happened could easily fit under fraud, false advertising or any number of other criminal or civil laws. That's why I'm deeply skeptical of this part of the judgement: > He also said there was no constitutional right to “truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.” While technically true, that does not mean the conduct itself was lawful, and I'd expect someone better versed in legalese could explain it. PS: this case in particular relates to the city of Jackson, a municipal government, not the federal Congress, so the bit about "common defense and general welfare" is not binding to them. That would be the articles the municipality is incorporated under, as defined by the state of Mississippi, which apparently are too loose.
db48x 9d ago
People in the USA have both the right speak as they wish and to associate amongst themselves freely for any lawful purpose. A corporation is nothing more than a group of people who are associating with each other. If one person acting alone has a right to speak, how can that same right be denied to a group who have decided to speak together? And since “speech” in this context has always been interpreted to mean any act by which a message is conveyed to other people, it naturally includes applause, sitting quietly, donating money, etc, etc.
- Frieren 9d ago
  > how can that same right be denied to a group who have decided to speak together? Corporations are not people nor behave like individuals. Money is not speech. > “speech” in this context has always been interpreted to mean any act by which a message is conveyed to other people Like a bullet? That explains the high murder rate in the USA. Your argument makes no sense and only works if one does not think too much about it. > has always been interpreted Saying that it has always been like that does not make it so. Because it was not. It has always been agreed by everybody that corporations do not have a right to free speech only individual citizens have it.
  - db48x 8d ago
    No, no! Corporations are _groups_ of people. _Donating_ money is speech.

delecti 9d ago

I think the first amendment quite reasonably protects people making donations to political causes. The "speech" protections aren't limited to literal vocalizations, but also applause, writing, displaying signs, etc. And it also protects assembly, and donating to a political organization is a reasonable part of joining or supporting a cause. It does not have to protect corporations making those same donations; congress could remove donations from the list of powers granted to a corporation, and there's an effort in some states to do just that (it'll be on the ballot this fall in Montana). As for the second point, congress has that power, but not an obligation to do so. Congress could pass a law aimed at ensuring access to clean water, but not every law congress could pass has been passed. If congress passed such a law, a plain reading of that sentence would support the law being constitutional.

rbanffy 9d ago
> it'll be on the ballot this fall in Montana There are reasons to be optimistic.
rassimmoc 9d ago
Not from US and not a lawyer, but for me it makes sense for 'speech' to include writing, signs, etc... But not money. I think it should only include what every person has same of as every other person. We all can communicate, write, display signs,.... But not everyone can donate millions/billions
- db48x 9d ago
  Take heart in the fact that spending more money does not guarantee a win. The Harris campaign spent over a billion dollars in 2024 and she lost badly. She spent more than 2.5× as much as Trump.

didgeoridoo 9d ago

Because without protection of collective speech, there is no principled way to protect the freedom of the press. The Citizens United case affirmed that a private group could collectively spend money to produce and distribute a movie attacking Hillary Clinton during her campaign. The problem is, if you want to stop those people from spending money to influence the outcome of elections, you must also forbid the New York Times from doing so. That means no investigative journalism, no exposés of candidates, no endorsements or political op-eds. Ink and paper cost money, and that money is spent by a corporation. (And, if you succeed in letting newspapers have a regulatory carve-out, then all you’ve done is make them tasty acquisition targets for those same corporate interests you just tried to restrict.) I think unlimited spending on political messaging has poisoned our politics and our culture, but I think that’s downstream of a lot of other factors — the loss of social cohesion, weakening of civil society and institutions, and the growth of federal power raising the stakes of elections. Restricting speech won’t solve these issues. I’m not sure what will.

zdragnar 9d ago

It's the difference between a "negative" and a "positive" right. The former is something that government cannot do (compel or prohibit speech) whereas a positive right is something the government is obligated to provide (clean water). Many people- most, in the early days- had private wells, and do not in any way "get" water from the government at all. It wouldn't make sense for such a thing to be in the Constitution. Even now, the water at my house comes from a well in my basement. What happened could easily fit under fraud, false advertising or any number of other criminal or civil laws. That's why I'm deeply skeptical of this part of the judgement: > He also said there was no constitutional right to “truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.” While technically true, that does not mean the conduct itself was lawful, and I'd expect someone better versed in legalese could explain it. PS: this case in particular relates to the city of Jackson, a municipal government, not the federal Congress, so the bit about "common defense and general welfare" is not binding to them. That would be the articles the municipality is incorporated under, as defined by the state of Mississippi, which apparently are too loose.

db48x 9d ago

People in the USA have both the right speak as they wish and to associate amongst themselves freely for any lawful purpose. A corporation is nothing more than a group of people who are associating with each other. If one person acting alone has a right to speak, how can that same right be denied to a group who have decided to speak together? And since “speech” in this context has always been interpreted to mean any act by which a message is conveyed to other people, it naturally includes applause, sitting quietly, donating money, etc, etc.

Frieren 9d ago
> how can that same right be denied to a group who have decided to speak together? Corporations are not people nor behave like individuals. Money is not speech. > “speech” in this context has always been interpreted to mean any act by which a message is conveyed to other people Like a bullet? That explains the high murder rate in the USA. Your argument makes no sense and only works if one does not think too much about it. > has always been interpreted Saying that it has always been like that does not make it so. Because it was not. It has always been agreed by everybody that corporations do not have a right to free speech only individual citizens have it.
- db48x 8d ago
  No, no! Corporations are _groups_ of people. _Donating_ money is speech.