Special interests have NO limits in elections.

[turbo]

The activist right-wing Supreme Court has determined that corporations and other organizations have the right to spend as much as they would like to support or defeat any candidate. Corporations are not citizens, they are not given enumerated rights in our constitution, nor do they have the right to vote or claim Congressional representation. That's OK. The neo-con wing of the Supreme Court has decided that corporations can spend as much money as they want to influence elections.

As a matter of national security, did the justices take note of the many US corporations that are dominated or completely controlled by foreign powers? Those foreign powers probably won't have the interests of US citizens in mind when profit is on the line.

I foresee the mid-term elections of 2010 as the nastiest, crudest assault on the US populace ever, unless Congress acts to revise election laws. McCain and Feingold aside (and I hope they will redouble their efforts) even our sometimes dim-witted senior senator has come out publicly against the decision. Maine is a very rural state, and liberal interests can come here head-hunting to pick off senators at a tiny fraction of the cost of doing so in populous states. The Supreme Court's decision disenfranchises the voters of small states and increases the powers of states like CA, NY, OH, TX, FL... Sad day.

 

[Pinu7]

What is wrong? Corporations are legal persons by definition, and they have the right to spend their money the same way an individual does(see:http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1885/0 ).

Also, corporations, as an individual entity, are given constitutional rights, since many SCOTUS cases do rule in favor of corporations because of the 14th amendment. Corporations fully represent shareholders, and shareholders have the right to donate as much money to any candidate they see fit(assuming that the same restrictions to individuals are carried over to corporations) or to run as many political ads as they please.
Also, despite if there is a foreign stake in the company, if it is American based, then it has the right to spend its capitol on electoral donations or political advertisement.

Edit: For anybody viewing this thread who is uninformed: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31786.html

 

[turbo]

Corporations are not legal persons. They are conglomerates of investors, debtors, and interested parties. The recent Supreme Court decision is an invitation to a free-for-all in the mid-terms - a situation in which large infusions of money can derail even the weak semblance of representational government that we cling to. Packing the court with neo-cons may have worked out for the GOP, unless rational adults act in time. I hope that McCain, Feingold, Snowe, and senators from small states can rally to stop this assault on our electoral system. Unfortunately, our other senator (Collins) seems content to confine her comments to party-line screeds against Obama (re the underpants bomber, most recently) and shows about as much intelligence as a flatworm, while delivering every one of her pronouncements in a very convincing "Edith-Ann" voice. If you can listen to this idiot for more than a minute, you have my sympathy.

 

[Nebula815]

The activist right-wing Supreme Court has determined that corporations and other organizations have the right to spend as much as they would like to support or defeat any candidate. Corporations are not citizens, they are not given enumerated rights in our constitution, nor do they have the right to vote or claim Congressional representation. That's OK. The neo-con wing of the Supreme Court has decided that corporations can spend as much money as they want to influence elections.

As a matter of national security, did the justices take note of the many US corporations that are dominated or completely controlled by foreign powers? Those foreign powers probably won't have the interests of US citizens in mind then profit is on the line.

I foresee the mid-term elections of 2010 as the nastiest, crudest assault on the US populace ever, unless Congress acts to revise election laws. McCain and Feingold aside (and I hope they will redouble their efforts) even our sometimes dim-witted senior senator has come out publicly against the decision. Maine is a very rural state, and liberal interests can come here head-hunting to pick off senators at a tiny fraction of the cost of doing so in populous states. The Supreme Court's decision disenfranchises the voters of small states and increases the powers of states like CA, NY, OH, TX, FL... Sad day.

The court is not right-leaning, it is constructivist leaning, which is how it should be.

And very good day, IMO. They shot down much of the ridiculous McCain-Feingold. McCain-Feingold does nothing to stop big money in politics, but what it did do was make it much tougher for non-rich upcoming politicians to be able to get elected, and much easier for already-wealthy and established politicians to remain in office (like Senators McCain and Feingold).

There are numerous ways to get big money around McCain-Feingold's restrictions if you have the connections.

Calling the Court "activist" on this is incorrect. They are adhering to the Constitution. If we think this is a bad ruling, there is the process of formal amendment to change the Constitution.

It would be activist for the justices to rule according to how they "think" the law should be as opposed to how it actually is.

From what I have always seen, it tends to be the Left that want to stack the Court with justices who will interpret the law according to how they feel it should be as opposed to what it actually says.

 

[Pinu7]

Corporations are not legal persons. They are conglomerates of investors, debtors, and interested parties.

Huh? Check your facts, legal persons are not restricted to be a Natural person, although they are included. Being person, legally, does not imply you are human or even living. Corporations are legal persons as they can individually make legal contracts, create lawsuits, etc. unlike sole proprietorships where all business actions are done in the name of the owner. In our legal system, every legal person is entitled to legal rights and duties that must be upheld. The freedom of speech should be included in these legal rights, as well as any other rights guaranteed by constitutional amendments. I applaud the SCOTUS's decision.

The recent Supreme Court decision is an invitation to a free-for-all in the mid-terms - a situation in which large infusions of money can derail even the weak semblance of representational government that we cling to.

Doesn't matter. A corporation does not force, either by physical means or by intimidation, anyone to vote either way. They just influence it like they influence us in believing "____ Toothpaste makes your mouth fresh and kissable."

Packing the court with neo-cons may have worked out for the GOP, unless rational adults act in time. I hope that McCain, Feingold, Snowe, and senators from small states can rally to stop this assault on our electoral system. Unfortunately, our other senator (Collins) seems content to confine her comments to party-line screeds against Obama (re the underpants bomber, most recently) and shows about as much intelligence as a flatworm, while delivering every one of her pronouncements in a very convincing "Edith-Ann" voice. If you can listen to this idiot for more than a minute, you have my sympathy.

I do not think that someone following the constitution adherently has the intelligence of a "flatworm." In fact, I am very offended.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Huh? Check your facts, legal persons are not restricted to be a Natural person, although they are included. Being person, legally, does not imply you are human or even living. Corporations are legal persons as they can individually make legal contracts, create lawsuits, etc. unlike sole proprietorships where all business actions are done in the name of the owner. In our legal system, every legal person is entitled to legal rights and duties that must be upheld. The freedom of speech should be included in these legal rights, as well as any other rights guaranteed by constitutional amendments. I applaud the SCOTUS's decision.

Corporate personhood is a legal fiction. Corporations are not afforded all of the same rights as any other person. They are granted many of the same rights for certain legal purposes to allow them to function in their capacity. Where exactly the distinction is made between rights afforded corporate personalities and those not I am unsure but I understand it is debatable. I see no rational justification for allowing those rights to extend to private campaigning as it does not seem to have anything to do with the general function of a corporation.

 

[Al68]

The activist right-wing Supreme Court has determined that corporations and other organizations have the right to spend as much as they would like to support or defeat any candidate. Corporations are not citizens, they are not given enumerated rights in our constitution, nor do they have the right to vote or claim Congressional representation.

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that a corporation isn't a "person" then claim that a corporation "paid for" a political ad.

If you use the word corporation to describe "who paid for" a political ad, then you are using the word corporation to refer to people, since the corporation's stockowners (people) paid for the ad.

The Supreme Court ruled that the government could not suppress political speech, even if the people who paid for it did so via an agent (corporation, etc.). Whether or not you consider "personhood" an appropriate term to use is irrelevant.

 

[NeoDevin]

Question from a foreigner:

Are individual citizens allowed to spend as much as they want in this way? Or is there a cap on how much an individual can contribute?

 

[Pinu7]

The concept of corporate personhood is not a new idea. Corporations are entities that can completely make rationale decisions for themselves through the wishes of the stockholder's. As such, the legal rights of the individual stockholder is naturallly extended to the corporation.

Provided, there are "limitations" such as corporations don't have the right to vote. However, this follows from the fact that voting is an "undeniable freedom of choice"(except for criminals, the insane, etc.) which means that it is reserved for the stockholder and no medium can make that choice.

The freedom of speech, unlike voting, is naturally carried over to the corporation since the corporation represents the wishes of the majority of the stockholders.

@ to Neodevin: There are restrictions an individual could donate to political campaigns. However, there is no restriction how much money an individual can spend to individually campaign for a candidate. If such restriction did exist, it would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

 

[BobG]

As a matter of national security, did the justices take note of the many US corporations that are dominated or completely controlled by foreign powers? Those foreign powers probably won't have the interests of US citizens in mind then profit is on the line.

I foresee the mid-term elections of 2010 as the nastiest, crudest assault on the US populace ever, unless Congress acts to revise election laws. McCain and Feingold aside (and I hope they will redouble their efforts) even our sometimes dim-witted senior senator has come out publicly against the decision. Maine is a very rural state, and liberal interests can come here head-hunting to pick off senators at a tiny fraction of the cost of doing so in populous states. The Supreme Court's decision disenfranchises the voters of small states and increases the powers of states like CA, NY, OH, TX, FL... Sad day.

I think both of these issues, the potential for foreign interference in US elections and the ability to "buy" Senators in small states, are very valid points.

I'm not sure this benefits Republicans, though. The McCain-Feingold Act has been fairly easy to circumvent, so corporations already contribute to campaigns - just via political action commitees instead of direct contributions. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-22/high-court-decision-may-bring-cascade-of-election-spending.html About 51% of that money wound up going to Republicans, while Democrats received about 49%. On national issues, Republicans are usually more pro-business than Democrats. No politician, whether Republican or Democrat, will want to damage companies in their own state or district when that company is contributing jobs and tax money to the area.

The problem for Republicans is that this ruling extends to labor unions, as well. In 2008, spending by labor unions on political action commitees was only $73 million (as opposed to the $327 million spent by businesses). Labor unions might seem to have less clout, but spending from their political action commitees broke 92% for Democrats and only 8% for Republicans. Republicans saw a net $6 million benefit from business PACs. Democrats saw a net $60 million benefit from labor PACs.

With the McCain-Feingold Act being at least somewhat ineffective, I'm not sure how much this will affect spending by businesses and labor organizations. I'm sure it will have some effect, maybe just not quite as much as people would expect, and maybe not the affect many people might expect (i.e. - the wrong group might have been rooting for this decision to happen).

If you focus less on political party and more on the benefits to the groups contributing money, this decision is good for businesses. They outspend labor organizations and benefit regardless of which party is influenced by their contributions. Once again, the benefit isn't as huge as one might think since some groups might not benefit from the same policies (legal profession resisting tort reform while medical profession pushing tort reform, for example).

It does lessen the impact individuals have (especially the small contributor type fund-raising that worked so well for Obama in 2008). That's sad. The political debate still exists, but the voters choose between options provided by someone else, rather than choosing their own options from the start.

 

[turbo]

The most dangerous part of the decision (IMO) is the ability for monied interests from either camp to swoop into a small state and "buy" a senate seat. There is already too much influence wielded by special interest groups in today's politics, and the Supreme Court's decision will multiply that influence, to the detriment of the voters. I have stopped writing letters to my two Republican US Senators because all I ever get back in response is a form letter that is so vague and off-topic that it is an insult. Maybe now, the only response I'd get from them is a referral to their corporate handlers.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Turbo, I agree that this is terrible [at least it sure seems to be]. Corporations are not citizens. What's more, it is clear that many corporations have no national loyalties.

How does this work? Does the corporation have to be US owned, and how do we even define that in a world of multinationals? What prevents the Chinese [for example] from spending a Billion dollars to throw an election?

 

[drankin]

All this has to do with is advertising, really. A law that was unconstitional in the first place was struck down.

I think it would be fair that any corp that is going to endorse a campaign would have to be at least 51% (or more) American owned.

 

[Al68]

The constitutionality of a law isn't determined by its goals or outcome, its determined by whether or not government exceeded the power delegated to it by the constitution. The power to suppress political speech isn't delegated to the federal government by the constitution.

It's that simple.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The constitutionality of a law isn't determined by its goals or outcome, its determined by whether or not government exceeded the power delegated to it by the constitution. The power to suppress political speech isn't delegated to the federal government by the constitution.

It's that simple.

It seems to me that the ability to limit free speech isn't the issue, rather, who or what is protected by free-speech laws is the issue. Since when was the Constitution intended to protect foreign nations that wish to influence elections?

Where does the Constitution list the rights of corporations?

Why was I limited to $2500 of donations to the Obama campaign?

 

[Al68]

The most dangerous part of the decision (IMO) is the ability for monied interests from either camp to swoop into a small state and "buy" a senate seat.

Political speech constitutes "buying a Senate seat"? If that's the case, then "buying Senate seats" is just a phrase used to describe political freedom and democratic government.

 

[turbo]

Turbo, I agree that this is terrible [at least it sure seems to be]. Corporations are not citizens. What's more, it is clear that many corporations have no national loyalties.

How does this work? Does the corporation have to be US owned, and how do we even define that in a world of multinationals? What prevents the Chinese [for example] from spending a Billion dollars to throw an election?

It would cost far less than a billion dollars to throw a Senatorial seat in Maine. Even with our traditional high % turnouts, we have fewer than a million voters and only about 1/2 dozen TV stations with network affiliations. During the run-up to the last referendum, churches and right-wing donors teamed up to scare people into believing that if Maine's same-sex marriage law was allowed to stand, children would be taught about gay sex in schools and the "sanctity" of marriage would be ruined. The constant barrage of lies worked, and the same-sex marriage law was overturned by a people's veto. Chief among the opposition was the bishop of the archdiocese of Portland - leader of the very same church that has been shielding pedophiles for the last hundred years. I guess gay sex is only OK if it's between an altar boy and his priest.

What will happen if a large corporate group wants to weed out Senators like Olympia Snowe? She was the only GOP Senator that was willing to negotiate with the Democrats on health-care reform, and the GOP in the state has been making noises about her being a RINO because she wouldn't stand on the side-lines and "just say no" like the rest of McConnell's monkeys. Could a conservative PAC dump a few million bucks into a smear campaign and unseat her? It could happen. I'm not always happy with her positions, but I usually have to vote for her because of the quality of the opposition. I may no longer have even that tiny bit of choice if monied interests get to run our election campaigns.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

All this has to do with is advertising, really. A law that was unconstitional in the first place was struck down.

I think it would be fair that any corp that is going to endorse a campaign would have to be at least 51% (or more) American owned.

So 49% foreign influence in our elections is acceptable? You think that would be "fair", but how does it really work?

 

[Pattonias]

I think I can see the point of view from both sides. On the one hand there is nothing in the constitution that says that a corporation can not contribute funds to their chosen political representative.
On the other, we should support an amendment that would put something in the constitution that would block corporations from contributing money politically. I think the fundamental flaw is that a foreign power would be able to swing an election simply by channeling their money through a corporation whose HQ are based in the United States.
As much as it irks me to say this, statistically speaking a campaign is more likely to be successful if it has better funding. That is just the way it is. If candidate A has twice the budget of candidate B We will most likely hear more about A than B regardless of whether his principles are more to our own personal liking. We definitely don't need foreign powers contributing to the rift.
If a company feels that its stock holders would benefit more from one representative than another send out a letter to your investors and let them make their contributions personally.

 

[Al68]

It seems to me that the ability to limit free speech isn't the issue, rather, who or what is protected by free-speech laws is the issue. Since when was the Constitution intended to protect foreign nations that wish to influence elections?

Where does the Constitution list the rights of corporations?

A corporation doesn't have its own rights, and the Supreme Court didn't say otherwise. The corporation is acting as an agent of its stockowners, exercising their rights.

The law in question applied to corporations only to the extent that they represented people. The law didn't apply to corporations at all in any other way.

You just can't have it both ways. Either the word corporation is used to refer to the people it represents or not. If not, then you can't claim that the law restricted corporations, not people.

Why was I limited to $2500 of donations to the Obama campaign?

Because your rights were violated by an unconstitutional law. A law that has made politics more corrupt, not less corrupt.

 

[Al68]

During the run-up to the last referendum, churches and right-wing donors teamed up to scare people into believing that if Maine's same-sex marriage law was allowed to stand, children would be taught about gay sex in schools and the "sanctity" of marriage would be ruined. The constant barrage of lies worked, and the same-sex marriage law was overturned by a people's veto. Chief among the opposition was the bishop of the archdiocese of Portland - leader of the very same church that has been shielding pedophiles for the last hundred years. I guess gay sex is only OK if it's between an altar boy and his priest.

Why don't you use an example of political speech you agree with to rationalize suppressing it? It's easy to talk about how horrible it for people you disagree with to be allowed to engage in political speech.

Believing in free speech is believing in the kind of political speech you most object to, not just the kind that's not objectionable, or that doesn't influence elections against your side.

 

[turbo]

Why don't you use an example of political speech you agree with to rationalize suppressing it? It's easy to talk about how horrible it for people you disagree with to be allowed to engage in political speech.

Believing in free speech is believing in the kind of political speech you most object to, not just the kind that's not objectionable, or that doesn't influence elections against your side.

Stopping corporations from using their money to buy elections is not suppressing their "speech". They are not citizens. When they use their money to overthrow laws that they don't like, we all lose. That said, you apparently have not been exposed to the gross lies that the churches and their out-of-state money-men were blanketing us with. They were outright lying, claiming that the same-sex marriage bill passed by the legislature had all kinds of provisions that it clearly didn't have. Kind of like Palin's claim that the health-care reform proposal to rein in the abuses of insurance companies would set up "Death Panels". It's a lie, but there are all kinds of idiots in this country, and even idiots are allowed to vote.

 

[BobG]

You just can't have it both ways. Either the word corporation is used to refer to the people it represents or not. If not, then you can't claim that the law restricted corporations, not people.

You've used this argument twice and I still have no idea what you're getting at.

Are you saying there's a paradox because if the corporation doesn't refer to the people it represents, then Congress has no authority over it? I.e - Congress can only govern humans - they can't tell rivers, sheep, or cars what to do?

And that the only way Congress has any authority over corporations is because they're groups of humans? And Congress's authority is over the humans that corporations represent; not the corporation itself?

 

[Al68]

Stopping corporations from using their money to buy elections is not suppressing their "speech". They are not citizens.

And it wasn't their money or speech being suppressed by the law in question. This isn't that hard to understand: If you're not using the word "corporation" to refer to the people it represents, then "corporations" weren't the targets of the law. The law restricted the actions of people.

The law didn't even apply to corporations in any way whatsoever other than their role as representatives of people.

A corporation, itself, is incapable of speech, paying taxes, violating laws, or anything else. Only people are capable of those things, so a law applying to such things applies to people.

I have no reason to delve into the specifics of the Maine issue you mention, or how objectionable the political speech was, because its irrelevant to the issue.

 

[BobG]

And it wasn't their money or speech being suppressed by the law in question. This isn't that hard to understand: If you're not using the word "corporation" to refer to the people it represents, then "corporations" weren't the targets of the law. The law restricted the actions of people.

The law didn't even apply to corporations in any way whatsoever other than their role as representatives of people.

A corporation, itself, is incapable of speech, paying taxes, violating laws, or anything else. Only people are capable of those things, so a law applying to such things applies to people.

Your last line is incorrect. Corporations do have legal personalities, although limited. Their "personhood" is defined by law. In other words, not being "real" people, corporations have no inalienable rights; just the rights and responsibilities bestowed on them by law.

What you say might be a logical argument for not allowing the law to create corporations. It's not a logical argument for an entity that the law has already created and defined.

 

[Al68]

You've used this argument twice and I still have no idea what you're getting at.

Are you saying there's a paradox because if the corporation doesn't refer to the people it represents, then Congress has no authority over it? I.e - Congress can only govern humans - they can't tell rivers, sheep, or cars what to do?

And that the only way Congress has any authority over corporations is because they're groups of humans? And Congress's authority is over the humans that corporations represent; not the corporation itself?

Kind of, I'm saying that a corporation in that sense is incapable of speech, or violating any law.

It's like saying that a law that outlaws blue cars applies to cars, not people, and cars aren't people. And despite the fact that the law restricts the actions of people (painting cars blue), and punishes people, claiming that cars don't have the "right" to be blue since they aren't people. It's just silliness.

The silliness is just less obvious with corporations because many people don't understand what a corporation is.

 

[turbo]

Kind of, I'm saying that a corporation in that sense is incapable of speech, or violating any law.

Are you making this up as you go along? Corporations are breaking laws on a regular basis, and as long as the penalties are smaller than the profits earned in the law-breaking, they continue on their merry way.

If a corporation is unable to break a law, some honcho at Monsanto might find out that you have written something negative about GMO crops, and order a hit-man to kill you. No harm, no foul because only the assassin committed a crime, not the corporation. That's ridiculous, though that's how corporate-driven foreign policy operated in Central America and South America for most of the 1900s. Try to unionize agricultural workers in El Salvadore - wind up dead. Try to shelter innocents from the death squads - wind up dead. Unless you are a nun, and they you wind up raped and dead.

 

[Al68]

Your last line is incorrect. Corporations do have legal personalities, although limited. Their "personhood" is defined by law. In other words, not being "real" people, corporations have no inalienable rights; just the rights and responsibilities bestowed on them by law.

The rights of a corporation are delegated by the stockholders in a contract, not bestowed by government. The government simply chooses to recognize the corporation as an agent of the stockholders for practical reasons, since the alternative would be to deal with each and every stockholder individually for every legal issue.

My last statement didn't claim that corporations had no legal personalities, just that if a law is broken, it was broken by a person. It's not like a corporation can break a law although no person did. And it's not like we put corporations in jail instead of people.

The word corporation can be used to describe the agreement between people that constitutes the corporation, or the people with the agreement. Either way, the agreement itself is incapable of having rights or violating law.

 

[Al68]

Are you making this up as you go along? Corporations are breaking laws on a regular basis, and as long as the penalties are smaller than the profits earned in the law-breaking, they continue on their merry way.

What I said was that in the restricted sense that you were using the word corporation, ie specifically not referring to any people, a corporation is incapable of violating any law, since a violation of law must involve the illegal action of a person.

You're now using the word corporation to refer to the people who broke laws. That's fine, but then you're obviously using the word corporation to refer to people.

If you use the word corporation to refer to people in one sentence, then specifically not to refer to people in another sentence, you can't then claim the word meant the same thing in both sentences.

 

[turbo]

Corporations break laws. Period. The difficulty with prosecuting corporations usually involves trying to find out who ordered the law-breaking, so that some person(s) might be punished. Think of Enron, for a glaring example. The notion that a corporation cannot break a law is woo-woo.

Fining a corporation is collective punishment. Finding out who ordered the law-breaking and punishing them is a whole other kettle of fish, though it's probably a whole lot more effective as a deterrent for future crooks and thugs wearing Italian suits and sitting on boards.

 

[Nebula815]

I believe corporations can break laws, certainly. And corporations that are privately-owned by a few people can still be big, for example Koch Industries.

That said, I do not believe any corporation can "buy" any Senate seat. McCain-Feingold, if anything, led to increases in the money in politics because corporations and special interests find ways to circumvent the laws, such as via political action committees as mentioned.

It also secures the ability of the rich and powerful to get and to remain in power. That's why it limited individuals to $2500 in campaign contributions. It makes it tougher for a non-rich person running for office to obtain funds.

It was another example of government intervention meant to accomplish one thing and instead creating the opposite.

If anything, McCain-Feingold made is easier to "buy" a Senate seat and striking it down now makes it harder.

As for foreign corporations messing in campaigns, well foreign corporations already are permitted to lobby in Washington. So do foreign governments. They both lobby Washington all the time and have been doing so for years. So I think this is a moot point. Some of the foreign corps even have front groups that act as "research organizations" to criticize their American competitors.

I'm not sure about lobbying, but on the campaigns issue, the only way to stop that is to outright ban all private funds to politicians and instead have all campaigns financed with public money, but that makes it very favorable to incumbents.

 

[turbo]

I'm not sure about lobbying, but on the campaigns issue, the only way to stop that is to outright ban all private funds to politicians and instead have all campaigns financed with public money, but that makes it very favorable to incumbents.

I would prefer public financing, too, to place all candidates on an equal footing. And ban all campaign money from the outside, and all "honoraria". I cannot afford to pay Sen Susan Collins (R-Maine) $20K to come speak to me and my wife at breakfast. So who is she going to listen to when policy issues come up? Me and my wife, or some special interest group that can line her pockets if she makes a short speech? The corruption in DC is disgusting, and the latest SC decision just opens the flood-gates to more and more corruption. If bribing public officials is protected "free speech", then the US is headed farther into oligarchy than Russia. Not good.

Banning all outside money would not necessarily favor incumbents, nor should it be necessary for the candidates to buy huge ad bundles. I would prefer that they debate one another, and that the debates be broadcast by TV networks as a condition for holding their licenses.

 

[Pinu7]

1. American Corporations are legal persons. (not debating that anymore, it is fact.)
2. Constitutional rights apply to legal persons.
3. Therefore, corporations are protected by the constitution.

SCOTUS made the logical decision. Political advertisement is a protected right and there is no reason to take that away.

So 49% foreign influence in our elections is acceptable? You think that would be "fair", but how does it really work?

Sure. Corporations represent 51% of the shareholder's money. If most of that money is from Americans, then the other 49% are drowned out.

Corporations break laws..

How corporations can break laws, yet are not protected by constitutional rights is utterly preposterous.

 

[Al68]

Corporations break laws. Period.

LOL. I never disagreed with that statement, but that statement attributes personhood to the corporations. You are attributing personhood to corporations.

But the fact remains, regardless of semantical issues, that the law in question did in fact restrict the actions of people. Period.

You can't use a "corporations aren't people" argument to justify restricting the actions of people. Is this not obvious?

 

[turbo]

1. American Corporations are legal persons. (not debating that anymore, it is fact.)

It is not a fact. They are legally-recognized entities in the states in which they are incorporated. Do they have birth certificates, voter-registrations, and passports? No. They are created to let a bunch of people do what single people would find difficult or expensive to do individually, AND to limit the liability of the investors. Investors can lose their investment, but they are not liable for wrong-doing on the part of the corporation.

2. Constitutional rights apply to legal persons.

Not until such fictitious persons are granted such rights. The Supreme Court has engaged in legislation from the bench with this decision. Instead of interpreting law in light of the Constitution, they have taken the law into their own hands and that will disrupt and corrupt our elections until Congress takes action.

3. Therefore, corporations are protected by the constitution.

Since your premise #1 and #2 are badly flawed, your conclusion is wrong.

SCOTUS made the logical decision. Political advertisement is a protected right and there is no reason to take that away.

Yes there is. When special-interests can erode or negate the rights of the electorate, they need to be controlled. The court has relinquished all such control.

How corporations can break laws, yet are not protected by constitutional rights is utterly preposterous.

Corporations can be protected by the rule of law, but it is ridiculous to equate them with citizens or accord them the rights accorded to citizens. Can corporations bear arms? If not, why not? Do you not see a disconnect in your logic?