Is Amendment XXVIII a Radical Restriction on Freedom of Speech?

[Ivan Seeking]

Bill Moyer addressed this issue on his Journal, this week.

Here is one excerpt that addresses a rather salient point, in my not so humble opinion. Like Obama, Lessig is Constitutional scholar.

... LAWRENCE LESSIG: I'm not against corporations. I think corporations are great. All kinds of corporations. And of course I think corporations ought to have certain rights. But there's a "Bladerunner" moment to this, where all of a sudden the rights that they have are not the rights that we give them, but rights that they have, certain inalienable rights as the Declaration of Independence put it. They've magically been given.

Look, you agree, we agree, that corporations are associations of individuals. But the mere fact that I have a right to vote and you have a right to vote, and we associate with a corp-- and make a corporation, doesn't mean that the corporation should have a right to vote.

NICK GILLESPIE: That's right. And they don't.

LAWRENCE LESSIG: So- well, but the question is-

NICK GILLESPIE: That's not on the table, is it?

LAWRENCE LESSIG: But the question is why? Because if the mere fact that I'm an individual, and I have a right to speak. And you're an individual and you have a right to speak. Associating together means that entity has the right to speak. Why doesn't that extend to the full range of quote "rights" that you and I have because our creator endowed us with them. And we have these unalienable rights?

NICK GILLESPIE: You know, we understand that a corporation is a legal term. One of the things that is problematic is to say, and again, in the Citizens United case, we have a clear cut example of a corporate entity that was shot down, it was censored, it was repressed by the government, because it was making speech that was not tolerated by the government. That's a big problem. And it can only get worse if we start coming up with even more nuanced and intricate schemes to control electioneering communication...

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02052010/transcript5.html

Watch online
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02052010/profile2.html

As always, a worthy discussion regardless of your point of view.

 

[Skyhunter]

Suggestions?

Clear up the ambiguity and confusion surrounding the status of corporations that has led to the usurpation of rights by corporate entities over the last 140 years.

I am not a lawyer, so I wouldn't know how to go about it. But amending the Constitution is a bit drastic IMO.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am not a lawyer, so I wouldn't know how to go about it. But amending the Constitution is a bit drastic IMO.

According to the legal scholars that I've been following, there is no other way. The SC overturned a century's worth of law and is the final authority given the existing framework. The only other option would be to wait until there is another lefty on the court and reverse the decision, again.

 

[Skyhunter]

According to the legal scholars that I've been following, there is no other way. The SC overturned a century's worth of law and is the final authority given the existing framework. The only other option would be to wait until there is another lefty on the court and reverse the decision, again.

I would prefer to put the matter to rest once and for all. Probably not a better time than now. Corporations are not particularly popular ATM, and if we wait, they will be up to speed on gaming and controlling the system in order to get their way.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would prefer to put the matter to rest once and for all. Probably not a better time than now. Corporations are not particularly popular ATM, and if we wait, they will be up to speed on gaming and controlling the system in order to get their way.

That is an interesting point. Due to the nature of the problem - excessive influence in elections by non-human "persons" - it is conceivable that we have a finite window of opportunity to reverse the damage before it's too late.

Hey, isn't a "person" defined to be a human? [Heh, I checked and it is the first definition.] ... not according to the SC. There is neoconservative logic for you.

 

[drankin]

The government cannot limit the free speech of an individual or an association of individuals (a corporation). Foreign or domestic, for that matter. It's not the function of our government to limt free speech, period.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The government cannot limit the free speech of an individual or an association of individuals (a corporation). Foreign or domestic, for that matter. It's not the function of our government to limt free speech, period.

The government doesn't have a right to limit foreign influence in US elections? How do you justify that claim? Where does the Constitution protect the rights of Chinese manufacturers to determine the outcome of US elections? That IS the sort of implication in play here.

Why doesn't a corporation have the right to vote? Also, if a corporation is a person, I want to see one imprisoned for crimes. A corporation can stand trial, but are they subject to the same laws as everyone else. Obviously not!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Does the corporation have a right to religious freedom. Can a corporation hold public office?

Could we see Halliburton on the ballot in the next Presidential election? [Oh wait, we already did in 2000 ]

A "Bladerunner moment" is right.

 

[drankin]

The government doesn't have a right to limit foreign influence in US elections? How do you justify that claim? Where does the Constitution protect the rights of Chinese manufacturers to determine the outcome of US elections? That IS the sort of implication in play here.

Why doesn't a corporation have the right to vote? Also, if a corporation is a person, I want to see one imprisoned for crimes. A corporation can stand trial, but are they subject to the same laws as everyone else. Obviously not!

Don't put words in my mouth. The government cannot limit the free speech of anyone. Corporations are made up of people. I don't care whether a corporation is a "person" or not. Why do we want the government to limit the speech of anything or anyone? I think this is the whole point. It's not the function of our government to limit speech regardless of where it comes from.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In times of crisis, a President can nationalize a corporation - thus revoking its so-called Constitutional rights. What is the equivalent legal action wrt to a person?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Don't put words in my mouth. The government cannot limit the free speech of anyone. Corporations are made up of people. I don't care whether a corporation is a "person" or not. Why do we want the government to limit the speech of anything or anyone? I think this is the whole point. It's not the function of our government to limit speech regardless of where it comes from.

The words coming out of your mouth are what lead to my statements. What you are arguing is ideology regardless of consequences. It was never intended that we be ideological robots. We have brains and we need to use them.

We cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. One is not free to incite a riot. Free speech IS limited by the government. This is true when free speech is a threat to the welfare of all people. In this case, democracy itself is in jeopardy. This abberation in the law represents perhaps the most dangerous and insidious threat of all because it undermines the foundation of our system of government - the democratic process.

To say a corporation is made up of people is not the same as saying a corporation is a person. Also, a corporation is not a representitive entity. They don't hold elections for the employees to determine the actions of the company. It is a hierarchical entity, not a democratic one. By your logic, the vote of a slave owner was representitive of the wishes of the slaves.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If a corporation is a person entitled to the same rights as everyone else, since it cannot be jailed, it becomes a defacto supercitizen that is subject to some but not all laws.

Recall that no one is above the law. How do we rectify that problem?

 

[drankin]

The words coming out of your mouth are what lead to my statements. What you are arguing is ideology regardless of consequences. It was never intended that we be ideological robots. We have brains and we need to use them.

We cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. One is not free to incite a riot. Free speech IS limited by the government. This is true when free speech is a threat to the welfare of all people. In this case, democracy itself is in jeopardy. This abberation in the law represents perhaps the most dangerous and insidious threat of all because it undermines the foundation of our system of government - the democratic process.

To say a corporation is made up of people is not the same as saying a corporation is a person. Also, a corporation is not a representitive entity. They don't hold elections for the employees to determine the actions of the company. It is a hierarchical entity, not a democratic one. By your logic, the vote of a slave owner was representitive of the wishes of the slaves.

I'm not talking about fires and I'm not talking about voting. I'm talking about the ability for anyone or any"thing" the ability to speak, via newspaper, internet, commercial, or any other media without government restriction. Particularly during elections! Period.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm not talking about fires and I'm not talking about voting. I'm talking about the ability for anyone or any"thing" the ability to speak, via newspaper, internet, commercial, or any other media without government restriction. Particularly during elections! Period.

Does my car get freedom of speech? My computer? Apparently you have no problem with free speech for Mickey Mouse and Joe Camel. So where is the line drawn? I mean if we can allow nonexistant persons free speech then we should allow freedom of speech for animals too right? How about dolls? Some guy in Japan is trying to marry his sex doll. Should his 'wife' be allowed free speech and the right to vote if he were an American citizen?

Speech comes from people, not 'things', so there is no reason to allow such unlimited rights for 'things'. The full legal responsibility and liability for any speech made should be placed entirely on the shoulders of the actual human 'speakers' rather than allowing them this proxy with supposed rights of its own.

 

[CRGreathouse]

If a corporation is a person entitled to the same rights as everyone else, since it cannot be jailed, it becomes a defacto supercitizen that is subject to some but not all laws.

Don't be ridiculous. Corporations lack most of the rights of natural persons (voting, petition, etc.) and are subject to dissolution rather than imprisonment. But it's not really useful to view them as persons; the legal fiction exists for convenience only.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The full legal responsibility and liability for any speech made should be placed entirely on the shoulders of the actual human 'speakers' rather than allowing them this proxy with supposed rights of its own.

Let's say that a corporation yells "Fire!" in a crowded theatre -- or more to the point, it makes absurd and damaging false claims that incite panic. I would want to be able to hold the corporation responsible for that act, not just the board of directors and the corporate scapegoats. Are you suggesting that the corporation be granted immunity in such cases?

 

[BobG]

The government cannot limit the free speech of an individual

True in general. There can be limits, though. Can't libel a person, can't lie to incite panic, etc.

... or an association of individuals (a corporation).

False. A coporation is not an association of individuals. The stockholders are not joining together to share a common situation. They're creating a legal entity to stand between them and the real world.

I could buy this argument for a political party, and maybe even a union; but not for a corporation. Corporations are a different type of organization.

They are more like a firewall than an association of individuals.

It's not the function of our government to limt free speech, period.

True. Any communication (i.e. speech) has three components - the transmitter, the medium, and the receiver. Freedom of speech doesn't just mean the right to say anything you want. It also means the freedom to hear or read the things you want.

Focusing on the rights of the corporation is a red herring, even if hard to resist since it's an interesting subject. You also need to focus on the rights of the listeners and how denying free speech of a corporation, union, etc will affect the listeners' rights to access information.

In fact, it's the rights of the listeners that justify putting limits on what a speaker can say (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, libel, etc).

 

[mheslep]

In other words, any company or group has freedom of speech, making the "of the press" part irrelevant and unnecessary? Or was the "of the press" part put in the amendment for a reason, since the "freedom of speech" part wouldn't cover a newspaper publisher?

I'd say it is the actions or behavior of the press that makes it the press; those actions are different from the common speaker. Thus for instance the collection of information from a source for publication has more or less been protected from inquiry by the state. The average speaker has to give that information up if called to court (the dock).

 

[BobG]

Differences between a corporation and an association of individuals.

1) Married couple. They can contribute to a campaign via a single check with the contribution being evenly split between them (unless they've attached some documentation stating a different distribution). The contribution of each would count against the limits for an individual's contribution limits. In other words, they couldn't each send in a $2400 check for a candidate in an election and then send in a joint check for another $2400. Being a married couple doesn't increase the contribution limit for each individual.

Additionally, a married couple can't donate money in their kids' name. (Each kid may voluntarily donate money to a campaign out of their own money, but they aren't considered to share in the parents' joint assets, so can't donate from them.)

2) A company partnership. A check can be sent in the company name with the contribution being split among the partners in proportion to their ownership percentage - i.e. each partner's share of the profits, since only profits can be used for the donation (which only means a campaign contribution cannot be considered a business expense since there may be no way to know whether the company will have a net profit or loss when the contribution is made). Whatever is contributed counts against each individual's contribution limits. In other words, if a company with two equal partners donates $4800 to a campaign, then each partner has hit his limit on campaign contributions. They can't each donate another $2400 in their own name.

3) Corporations can't donate money to a campaign (at least until the recent SCOTUS decision). If they could, and were considered to be an association of individuals instead of a separate legal entity, then their contributions would have to be split up among shareholders (excluding foreign shareholders prohibited from donating to US elections) and those contributions would be counted against each individual shareholder's limits. In the case of a shareholder holding a large amount of stock in many corporations, you'd have a problem in that the corporations wouldn't know if their contributions caused him to exceed contribution limits, in which case, the contributions would have to be resplit among shareholders still having room under contribution limits, etc.

In other words, if you have individual contribution limits (which may have effectively been struck down by the SCOTUS decision), then corporate donations create an intractable problem. The individual can't control his own donations and the corporation can't know if its individual shareholders are exceeding contribution limits.

1) Married couples. They buy a house together, then divorce. Thanks to the housing crash, they're upside down on their mortgage. They agree the husband gets the house and will continue to make payments. The husband bails and flees the country. The wife now gets to make the payments. Both agreed with the bank to make payments. Their divorce agreement is between them, not with the bank. Both are personally liable for that loan until it's paid off.

2) Individual business owner. Takes out a loan to start a business with his business as collateral. His business fails, he sells off his equipment, but still owes money to the bank. He still has to pay that loan even though he no longer has the business. The loan was a personal agreement between him and the bank; not his business and the bank.

3) Business partners taking a loan. Both partners are cosignors and equally personally liable to pay off the loan, same as if they took individual personal loans for the business.

4) Corporations. A corporation takes out a loan, then goes out of business. The individual stockholders are out whatever money they invested, but outstanding debt is not split among individual stockholders. The debts belong to the corporation, not the stockholders. If a corporation were an association of individuals, each stockholder would be delegating authority to the corporation to act in their behalf and they would be personally liable for any outstanding obligations if the corporation went out of business.

It's nice to argue that corporations are an association of individuals when it comes to freedom of speech. You do so knowing that common law denying corporations are an association of individuals when it comes to liabilities is older than the country itself and knowing the SCOTUS has to respect stare decisis in this case or bring the US economy to a complete and crashing halt. In other words, you can safely argue that a corporation is an association of individuals when it comes to free speech because you know there is no danger at all of a corporation being considered an association of individuals in any other way.

Note: It's still illegal for corporations to donate money directly to a campaign. This is just to show the difference between corporations and "an association of individuals". However, the impact of the decision guts contribution limits since a corporation can broadcast the campaign commercials on its own instead of giving a candidate money to broadcast his own commercials. (Not that current law prevents that from happening with PACs and 527s.)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Let's say that a corporation yells "Fire!" in a crowded theatre -- or more to the point, it makes absurd and damaging false claims that incite panic. I would want to be able to hold the corporation responsible for that act, not just the board of directors and the corporate scapegoats. Are you suggesting that the corporation be granted immunity in such cases?

As it stands only the corporate 'person' and just maybe some scapegoat, or person who was not effectively able to shield their activities behind the corporation, will be held responsible. It is quite possible that no actual individual will be held legally responsible even though we know that it was obviously individuals who perpetrated the act and not a fictitious person.

In an 'association of individuals' all persons involved in the 'association' may be held responsible in some degree corresponding to their involvement and all persons will be investigated. Actual people would be held legally accountable for their actions.

I am uncertain why it is that you would prefer to hold a fictitious person liable for the crimes of real individuals.

 

[Hurkyl]

That is an interesting point. Due to the nature of the problem - excessive influence in elections by non-human "persons" - it is conceivable that we have a finite window of opportunity to reverse the damage before it's too late.

Hey, isn't a "person" defined to be a human? [Heh, I checked and it is the first definition.] ... not according to the SC. There is neoconservative logic for you.

http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sa33.pdf

(I do not know if there is older law defining the term "person")

What was the point of that second paragraph anyways?

 

[BobG]

http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sa33.pdf

(I do not know if there is older law defining the term "person")

I'm sure there is. Laws often have to define the terms they use, since they're using the terms for one specific purpose within that particular law. That doesn't establish a new definition for the word itself. In other words, that definition is only valid within that particular text.

It's similar to defining the variables in a physics problem.

In this case, for this law, ...

Let "person" = "an individual, a corporation, a partnership, an association, a joint-stock company, a trust, any unincorporated organization, or a government or political subdivision thereof"

It makes the text easier to read if you only use one word instead of writing out all 9 entities the law pertains to over and over throughout the document.

A more general definition from an 1856 law dictionary (A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856). The example you gave would fall under item 3.

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Woodes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.
3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.
4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.
5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.
6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q.v.) and aliens, (q.v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.
7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth.
8. When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided into parents and children; husbands and wives; guardians and wards; and masters and servants son, as it is understood in law, see 1 Toull. n. 168; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1890, note.

Obviously, "older" is not always better, since quite a few of these definitions are obsolete, except in the context of understanding laws, or constitutional wording, that's even older than these definitions.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I am uncertain why it is that you would prefer to hold a fictitious person liable for the crimes of real individuals.

That's not what I said at all.

 

[BobG]

Let's say that a corporation yells "Fire!" in a crowded theatre -- or more to the point, it makes absurd and damaging false claims that incite panic. I would want to be able to hold the corporation responsible for that act, not just the board of directors and the corporate scapegoats. Are you suggesting that the corporation be granted immunity in such cases?

I am uncertain why it is that you would prefer to hold a fictitious person liable for the crimes of real individuals.

That's not what I said at all.

It's not clear at all as to what you mean by "hold the corporation responsible for that act". Who, exactly, is being held responsible? Is there some specific persons facing prison time or fines? Or is the corporation facing a fine, which, in effect, indirectly fines every stockholder in the company? (A fine is about the only punishment you can enforce against a corporation).

 

[BobG]

In times of crisis, a President can nationalize a corporation - thus revoking its so-called Constitutional rights. What is the equivalent legal action wrt to a person?

The draft.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The draft.

True in a sense, but higly constrained. Also, I don't think a company can refuse nationalization. It has no rights in that sense. A person can opt to serve their time in jail.

I wanted to post this response from one of my Senators. Apparently he has received enough emails to justify a specific response.

Thank you for contacting me to share your views about the recent United States Supreme Court decision that affects our campaign finance laws. It is an honor to serve as your Senator, and I appreciate hearing from you.

I strongly disagree with the five Supreme Court justices who decided in the Citizens United v. F.E.C. to reverse long-standing precedent by ruling that corporate spending on campaign ads is entitled to the same protections as citizens' free speech. I have been troubled for many years by the widespread perception that campaign contributors have greater influence in our democracy than ordinary citizens. Therefore, I am deeply concerned that the court's decision validates this view and will open the floodgates for political spending by corporations and special interest groups.

Our Founders understood that the success of our democracy requires ensuring that special interest voices do not drown out those voices of American citizens. I am committed to working with my colleagues to respond to this ruling and protect the integrity of our elections.

Thank you, again, for sharing your thoughts with me. I hope you will continue to keep me informed about the issues that matter most to you.

All my best,
Jeff Merkley
United States Senate

Go Senator Merkley!

 

[Hurkyl]

Yuck. He disagrees with the legal ruling because it doesn't suit his politics?

 

[Hurkyl]

Attempting to preempt misunderstanding... for the purpose of this (and my previous) post, I don't care what his politics are.

The role of the SCOTUS is, in principle anyways, to judge what the law actually says in the most difficult court cases.

But look at the reason Senator Merkley gives for disagreeing -- it's because he's troubled by perceptions and consequences, and has nothing to do with the law.

 

[mheslep]

Go Senator Merkley!

Go and do what? He doesn't suggest any action other than that you should keep writing to him.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Attempting to preempt misunderstanding... for the purpose of this (and my previous) post, I don't care what his politics are.

The role of the SCOTUS is, in principle anyways, to judge what the law actually says in the most difficult court cases.

But look at the reason Senator Merkley gives for disagreeing -- it's because he's troubled by perceptions and consequences, and has nothing to do with the law.

He is troubled for the same reason that I am: This threatens the democratic process. This is not just politics; it is about protecting the essence of democracy. This is why there are calls for a Constitutional Amendment to protect our system of government by The People. It may be that the five SC justices indeed honored the letter of the law; that all who came before, including other SC justices, were in error, however that is not the point. We do have the right and the responsibility to amend the Constitution when needed. What is your point, exactly, that we should yield power to corporations and even foreign interests based on some bizarre interpretation of the right to free speech?

The Constitution is all about consequences. "Consequences" are why we have Constitutional protections.

Go and do what? He doesn't suggest any action other than that you should keep writing to him.

He clearly understands the problem - that there is a HUGE problem - and intends to act. It may be foolish for him to engage in discussion of any specifics until some sort of consensus has been reached among the Dems in Congress. Whether he acts or not, we will see. The fact is that his website specifically asked if a response is requested. I checked the "No" option. Yet, not only did I receive an acknowledgment of my email, it was a highly targeted response. For now, I could hardly ask for more beyond a personal letter or phone call.

If he follows through, it will count heavily in his favor in the next election. If he leads the charge, I may becomes a loyal fan and do what I can to help to fund his next election; provided that contributions from us real people still matter.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would like to know how an open door to excessive domestic and foreign corporate influence in our election process serves the people, the process, or the country. What exactly would we be protecting if the democratic process itself serves no useful purpose?

I find this entire discussion to be surreal. Ideology has been taken far beyond absurdity.

I would also point out that by stare decisis, the court's decision is anything but conservative. By overturning a century of law, this is about as liberal as it gets when it comes to a court decision. Conservatives? What a joke!

 

[mheslep]

I would like to know how an open door to excessive domestic and foreign corporate influence

I don't follow how this recent decision is suddenly an open door for influence, when we have had billionaires like Soros on a crusade donating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#United_States" of dollars to political action causes over the last few years without similar complaint?

 

[Hurkyl]

What is your point, exactly
...?

My point, exactly, is that criticizing the Supreme Court decision on the grounds that it conflicts with his political agenda -- no matter how well-meaning it is -- shows a flagrant disregard for the reason we have the SCOTUS in the first place.

Thankfully, the constitution protects the SC justices from overzealous politicians.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't follow how this recent decision is suddenly an open door for influence, when we have had billionaires like Soros on a crusade donating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#United_States" of dollars to political action causes over the last few years without similar complaint?

Tens of millions for many causes? You think that is excessive influence? How about a billion for a critical 60th seat in the Senate, bought and paid for by non-citizens. You tell me precisely how far the influence could reach given no limits. What are the limits of virtually infinite funding for disinformation campaigns that serve only multinational corporate interests, and in no way serve the interests of the American people.

I don't know anything about Soros so I would have to look at what he has been doing before making a specific comment. I may well object to his level of influence as well.

However, your premise is seriously flawed. Remember that five people overturned a century of law. Many people, including me, Democrats, and Republicans alike, have been worried and complaining about excessive influence for a very long time. That is why we had laws like McCain-Feingold - a bipartisan effort - which was overturned by this decision.

 

[mheslep]

Tens of millions for many causes? You think that is excessive influence?

That's from just one single individual, and what many causes? Soros said he had one primary goal: beating Bush. I'm not concerned at the moment about Soros' influence. I'm concerned that the complaints raised in this thread are really about funding for a particular viewpoint.

How about a billion for a critical 60th seat in the Senate, bought and paid for by non-citizens.

Apparently you are speaking hypothetically? I wasn't. Again my question was why the sudden concern? Why don't you think a billion could go to political action for a Senate seat the day before the Citizens United case?

You tell me precisely how far the influence could reach given no limits. What are the limits of virtually infinite funding for disinformation campaigns that serve only multinational corporate interests, and in no way serve the interests of the American people.

Substitute George Soros, or Hollywood mega stars, or trial lawyers, or ACORN for corporate interests then we can talk. Interesting side note on Hollywood. Former Sen Hollings (D-SC ) (39 years) gave an interview in which he said, paraphrasing: given his semi liberal views, in his state South Carolina he had no prayer of raising the cash he needed year after year. So he made regular trips out to Hollywood to pass the hat.

Remember that five people overturned a century of law.

That's an assertion from the President, not a fact, which I don't accept.

Many people, including me, Democrats, and Republicans alike, have been worried and complaining about excessive influence for a very long time.

Well, in this thread, I have not see a good case for a politically agnostic complaint about influence. The thread topic is an amendment to the US constitution of all things, that somehow wasn't necessary to stop the prior billions donated under McCain Feingold, or proposed in response to the http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2008/reportersblog/2008/12/obama_campaign_fundraising_tot.html" g.