Special interests have NO limits in elections.

[Al68]

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?

Would you favor a law that made it illegal for a "corporation" to bear arms on the basis that corporations aren't people? Referring to a corporation as a "bearer of arms" is using the word to refer to people, obviously.

Your statements equate corporations to citizens. You are the one referring to illegal actions of people as "corporations breaking laws".

Again, you just can't use the "corporations aren't people" argument to justify restricting the actions of people.

Are you just pretending to not understand this?

 

[Nebula815]

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 is allowing political free-speech eroding or negating the rights of the electorate?

This SCOTUS decision was a victory for free speech. If it is determined to truly be a bad thing that is permitted, then the method is to change the Constitution via formal amendment.

On a corporation, don't know if this adds to the discussion, but here is Wikipedia's definition:

A corporation is an institution that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members.[1] There are many different forms of corporations, most of which are used to conduct business.

Corporations exist as a product of corporate law, and their rules balance the interests of the management who operate the corporation; creditors who loan it goods, services or money; shareholders who invest their capital; the employees who contribute their labor; and the clients they serve. People work together in corporations to produce value and generate income. In modern times, corporations have become an increasingly dominant part of economic life. People rely on corporations for employment, pensions, goods, services, economic growth and cultural development.

An important feature of corporation is limited liability. If a corporation fails, shareholders normally only stand to lose their investment, and employees will lose their jobs, but neither will be further liable for debts that remain owing to the corporation's creditors.

Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[2] and they may be responsible for human rights violations.[3] Just as they are "born" into existence through its members obtaining a certificate of incorporation, they can "die" when they lose money into insolvency. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offences, such as fraud and manslaughter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

 

[edward]

"Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Abraham Lincoln

The law treats a corporation as a legal "person" that has standing to sue and be sued, distinct from its stockholders. The legal independence of a corporation prevents shareholders from being personally liable for corporate debts. It also allows stockholders to sue the corporation through a derivative suit and makes ownership in the company (shares) easily transferable. The legal "person" status of corporations gives the business perpetual life; deaths of officials or stockholders do not alter the corporation's structure.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/corporations

There were specific reasons that corporations were given the legal person status.

The ability to throw money in support of political candidates in the guise of free speech should not be one of them.

This opens a Pandora's box for the law of unintended consequences. Foreign entities who own American corporations can now be directly involved in American politics as these "unatural persons."

 

[Al68]

How is allowing political free-speech eroding or negating the rights of the electorate?

If you expect a rational answer to this, you'll be waiting in vain. People who advocate the use of force to prevent a political message from being sent and received will rationalize such force any way they can.

As you can see, some even suggest that the fact that the message might influence an election is the justification for using force to prevent it, instead of the very reason for protecting it. Apparently using government force (against political speech) to influence elections is just fine with them. They either don't realize or don't care how corrupt and anti-democratic that inherently is.

 

[Nebula815]

The ability to throw money in support of political candidates in the guise of free speech should not be one of them.

This opens a Pandora's box for the law of unintended consequences. Foreign entities who own American corporations can now be directly involved in American politics as these "unatural persons."

Keep in mind that it is not as if there was a lack of corporate money in politics and this opens up the floodgate to far more. The money was there already, it just finds its way around through loopholes.

 

[Evo]

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.

The point of incorporating is that there is no personal liability.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Your statements equate corporations to citizens. You are the one referring to illegal actions of people as "corporations breaking laws".

Again, you just can't use the "corporations aren't people" argument to justify restricting the actions of people.

Corporations can break laws. They are legally recognized as individual entities for certain legal purposes primarily regarding financial and business issues. The fact that they are recognized as legal entities means that is the corporation does something wrong the corporate personality, a fictitious person, is the one to take the fall. While the individuals who work for or are invested in the corporation may lose money if the corporation loses money they otherwise have only a limited liability for any wrong doing on the part of the corporate entity. So your person/not person/representative of persons dichotomy does not make any sense. The corporation is the "person" who is held legally responsible. Theoretically then the people who make up a corporation can break the law with regard to election and campaign laws and few if any of them will be penalized, instead the corporation will take the hit. And of course you can not jail a corporation, you can only fine it.

No one's rights are being restricted. All of those persons who are financially represented by the corporation still have their all of their rights. The restriction is (or rather was) placed upon the fictitious personhood of the corporation.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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.


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



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

Check the definitions and distinctions between "Legal Persons" and "Natural Persons".
The point of a corporation being granted a legal personhood was never intended to grant them all of the same rights as any real person. The legal fiction was constructed for financial and business purposes. Running private political campaigns has nothing to do with said purpose.

 

[Al68]

Corporations can break laws. They are legally recognized as individual entities for certain legal purposes primarily regarding financial and business issues. The fact that they are recognized as legal entities means that is the corporation does something wrong the corporate personality, a fictitious person, is the one to take the fall. While the individuals who work for or are invested in the corporation may lose money if the corporation loses money they otherwise have only a limited liability for any wrong doing on the part of the corporate entity. So your person/not person/representative of persons dichotomy does not make any sense. The corporation is the "person" who is held legally responsible. Theoretically then the people who make up a corporation can break the law with regard to election and campaign laws and few if any of them will be penalized, instead the corporation will take the hit. And of course you can not jail a corporation, you can only fine it.

I think you misunderstood my post, I never said a corporation generally couldn't break laws. What I said was that a "corporation" couldn't break laws if the word was being used in a specific limited sense that excluded people and their actions. In the post I responded to, the word corporation was used in a way that precluded the notion of it being capable of breaking laws, and I was disagreeing with using the word corporation that way. My statement was intended to show why using the word corporation that way was problematic.

But as an aside, the limitation on liability has nothing to do with criminal wrongdoing, it just limits the civil liability of stockholders to the value of their stock. Every person is still potentially criminally liable for any crimes they commit.

And the fact that a corporation is recognized as a separate entity for other purposes has nothing to do with this issue. A corporation is no longer considered a separate entity for the purposes of political speech. At least not by the current Supreme Court.

No one's rights are being restricted. All of those persons who are financially represented by the corporation still have their all of their rights. The restriction is (or rather was) placed upon the fictitious personhood of the corporation.

I was referring to the restrictions on the actions of people in the recently overturned law. I'd call a 5 year prison sentence for political speech a significant violation of a person's rights. Despite this law's horrendously inaccurate depiction in the media, the actual enforcement provisions in the law refer to actual people. Prison terms and fines were implemented by this law against real people for their political speech.

The Supreme Court specifically ruled that "corporate identity" (considering a corporation to be an entity separate from the people it acts as an agent for) could not be used as a basis for suppressing political speech. Government can no longer imprison or fine people for political speech simply because of the "corporate nature" of their association. It's a good day for freedom of speech and democratic government.

 

[WhoWee]

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

Here's a MUCH bigger concern - the US Government now owns GM - how will that work?

 

[ThomasT]

What's wrong with buying politicians? This is how things have been done since the beginning. Perhaps eventually we'll be civilized enough to just admit it, and then formally sanction it. That way checks can be sent directly to voters and we can all stop complaining that politicians are corrupt and that they don't act in behalf of the interests of the people.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here's a MUCH bigger concern - the US Government now owns GM - how will that work?

So your answer is to change the subject? Is limited to virtually unlimited foreign influence in US elections a problem or not?

Also, you picked the 49% number from thin air. What is the real number?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What's wrong with buying politicians? This is how things have been done since the beginning. Perhaps eventually we'll be civilized enough to just admit it, and then formally sanction it. That way checks can be sent directly to voters and we can all stop complaining that politicians are corrupt and that they don't act in behalf of the interests of the people.

Then why even bother with elections? Why not just appoint the person who gets the most money?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Check the definitions and distinctions between "Legal Persons" and "Natural Persons".
The point of a corporation being granted a legal personhood was never intended to grant them all of the same rights as any real person. The legal fiction was constructed for financial and business purposes. Running private political campaigns has nothing to do with said purpose.

Thank you.

I don't understand why those on the right so often seem to defend policies and interpretation of law that are in direct opposition to our national sovereignty or security. I really have to wonder whose side some folks are on.

 

[turbo]

Not only is this neo-con activism on the court a blow to our national sovereignty - it is a slap against all the states that have laws limiting campaign contributions by unions and corporations.

Expect to see the feedback from this idiocy rolling across the country. It will happen. For all the conservatives' lip service to state's rights, their fealty is quite apparent when corporate profits and influence are in the balance.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Not only is this neo-con activism on the court a blow to our national sovereignty - it is a slap against all the states that have laws limiting campaign contributions by unions and corporations.

Expect to see the feedback from this idiocy rolling across the country. It will happen. For all the conservatives' lip service to state's rights, their fealty is quite apparent when corporate profits and influence are in the balance.

As I understand it, this decision overturns a century's worth of laws.

I can understand the court's hands being tied IF a corporation is viewed as a natural citizen, but the premise is clearly the problem. What has to change is the accepted definition of a citizen.

When were corporations first defined to be a natural person or citizen?

 

[turbo]

As I understand it, this decision overturns a century's worth of laws.

I can understand the court's hands being tied IF a corporation is viewed as a natural citizen, but the premise is clearly the problem. What has to change is the accepted definition of a citizen.

When were corporations first defined to be a natural person or citizen?

Corporations are not natural citizens, nor are labor unions or other special-interest groups. SCOTUS has de-facto granted such status to special-interest groups with this decision, and that is going to open the door for all kinds of abuses on our electoral system. The implications are far-reaching, and have not been explored very thoroughly yet.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Corporations are not natural citizens, nor are labor unions or other special-interest groups. SCOTUS has de-facto granted such status to special-interest groups with this decision, and that is going to open the door for all kinds of abuses on our electoral system. The implications are far-reaching, and have not been explored very thoroughly yet.

In that case, we simply need Congress to define that a corporation is not a natural person entitled to Constitutional rights and protections.

If a corporation is a natural person, then it should be able to vote. I could even start many corporations and vote many times.

I guess this is what you get when Republicans nominate SC justices.

 

[turbo]

In that case, we simply need Congress to define that a corporation is not a natural person entitled to Constitution protections.

Corporations are legal entities that can be held responsible for misdeeds, crimes, racketeering, etc, but their rights extend to the collective and do not include rights granted to natural citizens. Natural citizens (individuals) have the right to vote, the right to run for public office, the right to bear arms, etc. Certainly, these rights are inappropriate for corporations to be granted. SCOTUS has far over-stepped with this decision, overturning not only laws, but many, many years of precedent.

 

[ThomasT]

Then why even bother with elections? Why not just appoint the person who gets the most money?

What I envision would be politicians (or corporations or whoever) buying my vote directly via some sort of auction procedure. Of course to do this they would have to raise lots of money (so I'm all for any law which relaxes or abolishes any restrictions on political contributions by any person or entity) -- which would also make the usual political commentary about who's raising the most money more transparently relevant.

Just as long as I get a check from somebody.

But seriously, what can the average voter do? (Because we know that the solution will not come, spontaneously, from congress or elected officials.)

My real solution is for people to stop voting for Democrats or Republicans. That might shake things up a bit.

 

[Nebula815]

Thank you.

I don't understand why those on the right so often seem to defend policies and interpretation of law that are in direct opposition to our national sovereignty or security. I really have to wonder whose side some folks are on.

SCOTUS's job is the interpret the Constitution according to how it is written, not according to how anyone would like it to be written. If we don't like how it is written, then we can change it, which we have done throughout history.

I guess this is what you get when Republicans nominate SC justices.

You get people who will seek to interpret the Constitution according to how it is actually written instead of how they would prefer it be written. The Left (who run the Democrat party at the moment) seek to appoint people who will interpret the law according to how they would prefer it be written, which is dangerous.

And again, big money has always been in politics, it just got through loopholes before. This was a free-speech issue.

This ruling did not make it where corporations and unions can contribute directly to candidates. That ban was enacted in 1907 and is still in effect. Those thinking that a corporation could now say, "You support legislation we want and we'll give $5 million to your campaign," effectively buying a candidate, this is still illegal to prevent corruption.

The ruling allows corporations, unions, etc...to spend freely on political commercials and so forth. We allow media organizations, which are corporations, to hold opinions and they can sway elections. Allowing government to influence what can be said in political speech and what cannot can lead to censorship if taken too far.

 

[Al68]

I really have to wonder whose side some folks are on.

A law which provided for fines and prison sentences for real people for their political speech was overturned.

I don't have to wonder which side anyone is on. They usually make it pretty obvious.

 

[Al68]

In that case, we simply need Congress to define that a corporation is not a natural person entitled to Constitutional rights and protections.

Why? No one disagrees with that now. This issue had nothing to do with recognizing any "rights" of a corporation. That's just propaganda for people who don't know any better.

Corporations, labor unions, and special interest groups aren't real people, they are composed of real people.

 

[Al68]

Corporations are not natural citizens, nor are labor unions or other special-interest groups. SCOTUS has de-facto granted such status to special-interest groups with this decision

What are you talking about? Are you referring to a special interest group of robots instead of people? Or a hamster labor union?

In a group of people, it isn't the "group" that has rights, it's the "people" in the group. Do people lose their individual rights when they join a group?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

A law which provided for fines and prison sentences for real people for their political speech was overturned.

I don't have to wonder which side anyone is on. They usually make it pretty obvious.

Fines and prison sentence for people who who expressed their political speech through corporations. If they had only expressed their political speech themselves instead of using a fictional person as a proxy there would be no problem. For what reason do they feel the need to hide behind a corporation in order to express their political speech? Why should they have such a right? and what reasoning could you possibly muster for the legal or practical necessity of such fictional persons having free political speech?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In a group of people, it isn't the "group" that has rights, it's the "people" in the group. Do people lose their individual rights when they join a group?

They all still had their rights. They never were withheld any rights. It is the fictional person that was withheld rights. Why do they suddenly get another voice when they become a corporation? Are all of their individual voices not sufficient?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

SCOTUS's job is the interpret the Constitution according to how it is written, not according to how anyone would like it to be written. If we don't like how it is written, then we can change it, which we have done throughout history.

The fact is that this overturns almost a century of laws and former scotus rulings. So according to THIS court, all related former rulings were in error.

I said that their hands might be tied, but I can see no logic that gives corporations rights as citizens. In fact it flies in the face of democratic principles.

There is no way this can stand, but according to one news corrspondent, there is little that even Congress can do short of a Constitutional ammendment.

You get people who will seek to interpret the Constitution according to how it is actually written instead of how they would prefer it be written. The Left (who run the Democrat party at the moment) seek to appoint people who will interpret the law according to how they would prefer it be written, which is dangerous.

And again, big money has always been in politics, it just got through loopholes before. This was a free-speech issue.

This ruling did not make it where corporations and unions can contribute directly to candidates. That ban was enacted in 1907 and is still in effect. Those thinking that a corporation could now say, "You support legislation we want and we'll give $5 million to your campaign," effectively buying a candidate, this is still illegal to prevent corruption.

The ruling allows corporations, unions, etc...to spend freely on political commercials and so forth. We allow media organizations, which are corporations, to hold opinions and they can sway elections. Allowing government to influence what can be said in political speech and what cannot can lead to censorship if taken too far.

That is all true, however, elections are won in large part through advertsing. Fox news has shown just how effective a corporate sponsored disinformation service can be. Also note that when a candidate is losing, the most effective strategy is to flood the airwaves with commercials. This is why my wife and I were sending Obama as much money as we could afford. It is imperative to understand the level of influence in play here.

Also, don't try to tell me that the Republicans don't load the courts with justices that favor their positions. Consider abortion, for example. This is a question of the defintion of life, not a matter of conservative interpretations of law. They are just as bad as the Dems, but I fail to see whose side they are on at times; other than the side of big business that has no national loyalties.

Don't you have a problem with foreign countries having the ability to influence our elections directly?

Again, who gave corporations a political voice? Where is that right protected in the Constitution?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It seems the movement has already begun

First Draft of a Constitutional Amendment to Authorize the Regulation of Corporate Involvement in Politics

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-m-shane/first-draft-of-a-constitu_b_434275.html

 

[NeoDevin]

How long until you guys can just elect the corporations to office directly?

Wal-Mart for president, anyone?

 

[Nebula815]

I said that their hands might be tied, but I can see no logic that gives corporations rights as citizens. In fact it flies in the face of democratic principles.

It is not giving corporations the same rights as citizens. It is about free speech and ensuring the government cannot block speech it doesn't like. Government should not be permitted to block and limit political speech.

That is all true, however, elections are won in large part through advertsing. Fox news has shown just how effective a corporate sponsored disinformation service can be.

If it was not for Fox News, there are things about Barack Obama for example that the public never would have even become aware of. Fox News as a news corporation makes mistakes and has its flaws like every other news channel (MSNBC, ABC, CBS (which lied about George W. Bush's record in 2004), CNN aren't flawless either). And of course all these channels have their opinion shows as well, but I think you attribute too much influence to Fox alone.

Also note that when a candidate is losing, the most effective strategy is to flood the airwaves with commercials. This is why my wife and I were sending Obama as much money as we could afford. It is imperative to understand the level of influence in play here.

I actually think most people are fairly smart enough to see through the standard politics in these commercials. That was how Scott Brown campaigned in Massachusettes for example. He did not go negative on Martha Coakley's negative commercials, he just said she was doing politics as usual and her ads were saying a lot of nasty things about him that were not true.

Also, don't try to tell me that the Republicans don't load the courts with justices that favor their positions. Consider abortion, for example. This is a question of the defintion of life, not a matter of conservative interpretations of law. They are just as bad as the Dems, but I fail to see whose side they are on at times; other than the side of big business that has no national loyalties.

Republicans, as far as I have seen, seek to appoint justices that will interpret the law as it is written, not whether or not they have views agreeing with them or not. And even then, that can be a risk. The justices Eisenhower appointed were some of the most activist justices ever appointed to the Court.

As for Big Business, Big Business influences both parties these days. More money from Wall Street goes to the Democrat party as opposed to the Republicans right now.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/21/nation/na-wallstdems21

When there was a push a few years ago to increase the tax rate hedge-fund managers pay (they pay at the capital-gains tax rate, which is 15% currently), Democrats killed it.

Goldman-Sachs is all for cap-and-trade, because they stand to profit from it, regardless of whether or not it will hurt our economy. So is General Electric, which in its ownership of MSNBC pretty much turned that network into a propaganda network it seems.

Don't you have a problem with foreign countries having the ability to influence our elections directly?

Sure. But as said, this is a political free speech issue and the justices were adhering to the Constitution. They are not supposed to rule according to what they feel is morally right or wrong, just according to what the law says.

If it is determined that foreign corporations can influence elections through commercials too much, then one can change the Constitution perhaps, but even then we need to be careful I think.

Also, IMO, I am more concerned about the fact that foreign governments and corporations are allowed to lobby our government right now then I am about their ability to influence political commercials.

There is nothing to stop ordinary citizens from pooling their resources together in organizations to inform their fellow citizens about public issues, so big corporations are not solely at benefit here.

Again, who gave corporations a political voice? Where is that right protected in the Constitution?

The First Amendment does. The First Amendment protects free speech, and political speech is one of the most important aspects of this. The First Amendment ensures people, either as individuals or as a group (which includes corporations), have the right to speak out about the government, political candidates, and the like.

One big component of a free society is a free press. The government being able to censor organizations that speak to the public because those organizations are corporations and have lots of money means the government could go after the media.

The cable news networks, the radio companies, etc...all are corporations, all with large amounts of money, all which speak to the public. If the government could censor them, the First Amendment dies.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Its funny. A while ago I came up with an idea for a story where legislation created a loophole in campaign finance that allowed corporations to spend large sums of money on political campaigns. A corporation then decided to produce a reality television show "Joe Blow for President" wherein they used an American Idol style nomination process to decide on a candidate from a group of "Average Joes" who had never ran for office before and then followed the nominee on their fully corporate funded campaign trail for the office of president. The nominee then of course has a weekly aired television campaign with plenty of advertisement besides.

I thought it was perhaps too far fetched and believe I saw some advertisement for a movie with a similar premise at some point so I abandoned the idea but its starting to look like a good idea again.

 

[Nebula815]

It seems the movement has already begun


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-m-shane/first-draft-of-a-constitu_b_434275.html

Yeah that free speech issue is a real pain-in-the-rear.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yeah that free speech issue is a real pain-in-the-rear.

So your intent is to mispresent the views expressed here? Show me where corporations are granted constitutional protections and rights. Nothing in the Constitution says anything about corporations. This idea that a corporation is a person is absurd. The very reason one "incorporates", beyond the tax benefits, is to AVOID any potential personal liability. It is intended to legally separate the individuals in the corporation, from the company. A corporation is a legal entity, not a person.

 

[Nebula815]

So your intent is to mispresent the view expressed here?

That's what the guy is drafting an amendment to do. Limit free speech.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That's what the guy is drafting an amendment to do. Limit free speech.

Why should fictitious persons be allowed free speech?