El, I agree.

However for this to have the intended meaning of the constitution, Santa Clara v. Pacific RR needs to be revisited, and in my opinion clarified to mean that corporation are not persons and therefore not entitled to the same rights.

Quote:

I swear we are freebasing stupid pills around here.

You friggn kill me El. Great post, great questions.

A very thought provoking thread this has turned into.

For me there is a difference between 'free speech' and Constitutionally protected 'free speech'. Only individuals get the second version.

Thank-you, Carl.

----------

The Truth is right here... err, wait. Well, it WAS there just moments ago!

El
No I don't think peeps are missing the "real issue" (and asking such in a condesending way really isn't necessary in what has been quite a civil debate. Could we ALL please not travel down that road?)

Instead they may see the "real issue" as different, corporations arguing and being granted constitutional rights from what you see appear to see as the "real issue", campaign finance and the government regulating who has the constitutional right to free speech.

IMO, the real issue is that a corporation, not a "group of individuals", brought a constitutional arguement, free speech, in front of the SCOTUS and won. Thus the case sets precedent that will be used for corporations to try to move well beyond personhood and right into constitutional protection. This HAS to be addressed and by the SCOTUS not addressing it, they put quite a dangerous ball in play.

Stevens mentions just that as a "real issue" in this case

SCOTUS Justice Stevens wrote..

Under the majoritys view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.

The majority did not respond to that and they need to.

B/c they didn't, this case is MUCH bigger than campaign finance law and regulation.
IMO, the majority SCOTUS failed/skirted/ignored the issue of "personhood" when they failed to even probe/address if the incorporated plaintiff even had the standing/right to bring constitutional protection into their arguement.
Why? Who knows, but the unintended consequences will be huge and when this precedent is used, it will extend well beyond campaign finance.
IMO this is a decision that needs at least more defined and perhaps over turned
Sometimes the easier, less messy comes with the titantic size other consequences. This is one of those
What is your opinion when you look at what others see as the "real issue"

Quote:

For me there is a difference between 'free speech' and Constitutionally protected 'free speech'. Only individuals get the second version.

Fine. Unions, the NYTimes, MSNBC, Newsweek, 527s, AirAmerica (RIP), are similarly enjoined from endorsing or publishing hit pieces on any politician within the limits of the existing laws.

If Maureen Dowd wants to mouth off on what troglodytes Republicans are, she can stand on the corner of 42nd and Broadway with a soapbox, magaphone, and umbrella. She can't use the NYTimes to spout her opinion, unless she owns the NYTimes as a sole proprietorship.

----------

Diversity + proximity = WAR

-They wanted camps; I want ropes.

Thank you Eleua.

Freedom can me messy but tyranny is worse.

The fight has started... And they have it wrong too actually. They are calling the USA a democracy. We are a Republic but I guess we are still educating people and some haven't learned that lesson yet. Cann't have everything. http://www.movetoamend.org/we-corporatio....

snippet:
"We the corporations"
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.

We Move to Amend.

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:

* Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
* Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
* Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.

Sign the Motion
Signed by 23,135 and counting . . .

"We are a Republic but I guess we are still educating people and some haven't learned that lesson yet."

"Signed by 23,135 and counting"

Democrazy in action.

----------

"DON'T BELIEVE THEM, DON'T FEAR THEM, DON'T ASK ANYTHING OF THEM." -ALEXANDER SOLZHENITSYN.

I enjoyed reading Scalia's concurring opinion.

Quote:

SCALIA, J., concurring
Historical evidence relating to the textually similar clause the freedom of . . . the press also provides no support for the proposition that the First Amendment excludes conduct of artificial legal entities from the scope of its protection. The freedom of the press was widely understood to protect the publishing activities of individ-ual editors and printers. See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commn, 514 U. S. 334, 360 (1995) (THOMAS, J., concur-ring in judgment); see also McConnell, 540 U. S., at 252 253 (opinion of SCALIA, J.). But these individuals often acted through newspapers, which (much like corporations) had their own names, outlived the individuals who had founded them, could be bought and sold, were sometimes owned by more than one person, and were operated for profit. See generally F. Mott, American Journalism: A History of Newspapers in the United States Through 250 Years 3164 (1941); J. Smith, Freedoms Fetters (1956).Their activities were not stripped of First Amendment protection simply because they were carried out under the banner of an artificial legal entity. And the notion which follows from the dissents view, that modern newspapers, since they are incorporated, have free-speech rights only at the sufferance of Congress, boggles the mind.6[b/]

Note: bold added by me.

Entire opinion can be found here.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/upl....

Actually, I think other posters have made a good argument that media outlets that are subsidiaries of huge conglomerate corporations might not actually qualify as the "press".

----------

Print the money and give it to the people.

Scalia wrote..

And the notion which follows from the dissents view, that modern newspapers, since they are incorporated, have free-speech rights only at the sufferance of Congress, boggles the mind.

Scalia gets it. (as usual)

----------

Diversity + proximity = WAR

-They wanted camps; I want ropes.

Sorry, Scalia has it spot on.

He's one of the bright lights. You may disagree with him but you should read his analysis first!

----------

Quote:

You may disagree with him but you should read his analysis first!

His opinions are priceless.

I have yet to read Scalia's concurring opinion on this, but I think he's overrated.

I just read it, and while he makes a good point in saying that the dissent should have produced historical evidence that corporations were not meant to have first amendment free speech protection, he doesn't produce any evidence they were meant to have it, either.

----------

Print the money and give it to the people.

Scalia doesn't question the Corporation/Person issue. His "analysis" assumes that is a non-issue. Yes, his view would be "correct" if you accept the Corporation/Person POV. If you don't accept that POV then is "analysis" is nonsense.

McCain-Feingold was/is written poorly, was over reaching and did that which the Constitution expressly forbids. It was only a matter of time before it was picked apart by people smarter than a staffer.

----------

"DON'T BELIEVE THEM, DON'T FEAR THEM, DON'T ASK ANYTHING OF THEM." -ALEXANDER SOLZHENITSYN.

I have not read the opinion. Me, I just think it is all about how well informed one wants to be before one makes a decision. If all you want is short sound bites on TV...well, ya get what ya get. The last 3 Presidents are national embarassments, IMHO. Put them next to someone truly great in history and what do they look like? Put them next to, let's say, Benjamin Franklin. GEESH. Now that is ugly.

El said: "This is about telling the .gov they can't regulate the source of free speech and news dissemination. The founding principle for the First Amendment was to make political speech as free and unfettered as humanly possible."

I don't think the gov is regulating "the source of free speech". To use your book example. If you as an individual write a book and say terrible lies about me and that damages me and my business, I will sue you and if a jury finds that you have indeed harmed me, you the individual will pay. No one is regulating your right to tell lies, that's free speech but that comes at a price if you libel or slander someone. Not so with a group of individuals who incorporate. The corporation will be sued and the individuals involved will not be held responsible (at least not usually) because they are protected by incorporation. It's the corporation that pays the damage and it's usually a drop in the bucket compared to the benefits of them corrupting the system. With privilege comes responsibility. If the gov gives someone or group of people special privileges, there must be regulation. The banksters have shown us how dangerous it is to not regulate.

----------

Sweet Poison
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-....

Robertmc,

Nobody is talking about slander. We are talking political speech.

In the cases of corporations, if there is gross malfeasance and criminal conduct, the perps and officers can be held to face criminal charges.

That's why Gen is saying "Stop the looting and start the prosecuting." Many of us have been advocating frog walks for the Banksters.

----------

Diversity + proximity = WAR

-They wanted camps; I want ropes.

Who better to argue the issue than the original attorney?

"Therefore, I venture to repeat that the Fourteenth Amendment does not command equality between human beings and corporations; that the state need not subject corporations to the same laws which govern natural persons; that it may, without infringing the rule of equality, confer upon corporations rights, privileges, and immunities which are not enjoyed by natural persons; that it may, for the same reasons, impose burdens upon a corporation, in the shape of taxation or otherwise, which are not imposed upon natural persons."

-- January 26th, 1885 Delphin M. Delmas, arguing before the Supreme Court

You have to remember that the evolution of the 14th amendment originally applied to WHITE citizens.

http://athenwood.com/theft.shtml Quoting again:
"That this law was intended to establish equality between men in their individual capacity, and had no reference to equality between men and corporations, is too plain for argument. The law took the rights of a white citizen as the standard of measurement, and simply commanded that the rights of all other citizens, whatever their race or color, should be equal to his."

I thought everyone here was all about the Constitution. What happened to that? This has been settled law for a hundred years, that is until activist judges decided to throw the corporations a HUGE bone.

----------

Sweet Poison
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-....

If corporations want to have individual rights they should be taxed like one. Their layer cake is going to have a lot of frosting and I bet corporations lobby to not be considered persons anymore.

----------

The free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself

Good post Roebrtmc. There are two constitutions. The one before the 14th Amendment bastardization and the one after it. The latter version was created by pure judicial fiat--judicial activism. As a lover of federalism I'm a big advocate of the former.

Quote:

The true test of whether you believe in liberties and rights is not whether you support them when they coincide with what you'd like to see happen - it is whether you support them when they are adverse to what you would prefer.

Ding, ding, ding!

Quote:

If corporations want to have individual rights they should be taxed like one

I'm sorry but do you really believe corporations pay taxes?

You tread on very thin ice when you suggest that one who accepts a government benefit forfeits his claim to constitutional protections. Anyone here have an IRA?