• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions remain

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions remain unanswered.

Following the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to allow unlimited corporate funding of federal campaigns, Murray Hill Inc. today announced it is filing to run for U.S. Congress. “Until now,” Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, “corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence-peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves.” Murray Hill Inc. is believed to be the first “corporate person” to exercise its constitutional right to run for office.
“The strength of America,” Murray Hill Inc. said, “is in the boardrooms, country clubs and Lear jets of America’s great corporations. We’re saying to Wal-Mart, AIG and Pfizer, if not you, who? If not now, when?” Murray Hill Inc. added: “It’s our democracy. We bought it, we paid for it, and we’re going to keep it.” Murray Hill Inc., a diversifying corporation in the Washington, D.C. area, has long held an interest in politics and sees corporate candidacy as an “emerging new market.”
You know, I agree with the Supreme Court decision, but they are about to become the butt of a million jokes over this. At this point, I would like to ask a question, that perhaps a lawyer or 2 on this board can answer. Was it a mistake for the SCOTUS to give this ruling on free speech for artificial persons instead of the actual people who run corporations? After all, people who are officers in corporations actually exist, and have the ability to speak, thus deserving free speech. What about artificial persons? What next, will they earn the right to vote, and if so, how in the world would they be able to accomplish that task? I believe that there should be limits on what artificial persons are allowed to do. It's just common sense - The demonstration of all of this, carried to its extreme, is an artificial person running for office.

What do you think?

BTW, the idea for this company's marketing campaign is pure genius. LOL.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions remain unanswered.



You know, I agree with the Supreme Court decision, but they are about to become the butt of a million jokes over this. At this point, I would like to ask a question, that perhaps a lawyer or 2 on this board can answer. Was it a mistake for the SCOTUS to give this ruling on free speech for artificial persons instead of the actual people who run corporations? After all, people who are officers in corporations actually exist, and have the ability to speak, thus deserving free speech. What about artificial persons? What next, will they earn the right to vote, and if so, how in the world would they be able to accomplish that task? I believe that there should be limits on what artificial persons are allowed to do. It's just common sense - The demonstration of all of this, carried to its extreme, is an artificial person running for office.

What do you think?

BTW, the idea for this company's marketing campaign is pure genius. LOL.

Article is here.
I thought that the US have already elected artificial persons, one only needed to look at Pelosi last night as she bobbed up and down like an automatum!
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,607
Reaction score
27,847
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

OMG, I guess we'll be seeing Microsoft and Exxon stickers on the back of Senate seats now. :roll:
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

See what happens when people irresponsibly report what the Supreme Court decided, and those myths are perpetuated by, oh, I don't know, an irresponsible President?

But I'm sure Murray Hill will get some play out of this.
 

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

It was an incredibly stupid decision. The idea that a corporation is a person is a completely disengenous argument.

What is hilarious is that the justices that bent and twisted every bit of logic to benefit their corporate buddies...are the same ones who always claim that the constitution is a static document and should be construed "Strictly".

What a joke....and this is an example of why their decision is an utter joke.
 

Dezaad

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,058
Reaction score
2,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed." Abraham Lincoln

There is no way that the people of the United States understood Corporations to be imbued by the Constitution with the rights of the people who own them. Only activist, non-Constructionist, Judges could have found rights for Corporations.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

It was an incredibly stupid decision. The idea that a corporation is a person is a completely disengenous argument.
Here's the text of the decision.

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

Where is that "argument" made in the reasoning behind the decision?

Have you even read it?


What is hilarious is that the justices that bent and twisted every bit of logic to benefit their corporate buddies...are the same ones who always claim that the constitution is a static document and should be construed "Strictly".

What a joke....and this is an example of why their decision is an utter joke.
Perhaps you should cite specific key passages of the decision and explain why it's wrong. If it's truly an "utter joke," that shouldn't be hard.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed." Abraham Lincoln

There is no way that the people of the United States understood Corporations to be imbued by the Constitution with the rights of the people who own them. Only activist, non-Constructionist, Judges could have found rights for Corporations.
Where does the text of the First Amendment exclude associations of people from its protection? I can't find the part where it says "Congress shall make no law except when it comes to corporations."
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

See what happens when people irresponsibly report what the Supreme Court decided, and those myths are perpetuated by, oh, I don't know, an irresponsible President?

But I'm sure Murray Hill will get some play out of this.
Know what would fix all this? Cameras in the courtroom.

If every trial was like the OJ trial, then everyone would be better informed about the law!
 

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

Here's the text of the decision.

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

Where is that "argument" made in the reasoning behind the decision?

Have you even read it?




Perhaps you should cite specific key passages of the decision and explain why it's wrong. If it's truly an "utter joke," that shouldn't be hard.
Read Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsburgs, Justice Breyers, and Justice Sotomayors sections. They all partly disagreed.

"At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining selfgovernment since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics." - Justice Stevens

I don't know if their decision is a "joke" because the majority of the court obviously had an appealing arguement as well. However, I am not sure it is as cut and dry as you make it to be.
 

DarkWizard12

Conservative Independent
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
10,135
Reaction score
2,260
Location
Tyler TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

It's funny how a corporation is a person but a fetus, which actually contains human dna, isnt.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
34,909
Reaction score
11,919
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

This is paramount to legalizing bribery and corruption.. congrats.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

This is paramount to legalizing bribery and corruption.. congrats.
This is the second time you've dropped into a thread on this topic with a nonsensical one-liner. If you weren't able to explain your stance after being challenged in the other thread, what are you bringing to the table here?
 

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

See what happens when people irresponsibly report what the Supreme Court decided, and those myths are perpetuated by, oh, I don't know, an irresponsible President?

But I'm sure Murray Hill will get some play out of this.
I am not sure the president was adding to the "myths."

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities." -President Obama

This somewhat echos what 4 of the supreme court justices said in the actual court decision.

"The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michi-gan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990)."

"Going forward, corporations and unions will be free to spend as much general treasury money as they wish on ads that support or attack specific candidates, whereas national parties will not be able to spend a dime of soft money on ads of any kind. The Court’s ruling thus dramatically enhances the role of corporations and unions—and the narrow interests they represent—vis-à-vis the role of political parties—and the broad coalitions they represent—in determining who will hold public office."

"Unlike voters in U. S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled."

So I am pretty sure he was not lying about the supreme court descision as some people like to say.

This is a section from Justice Stevens section that relates to the OP:

"In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure,and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races."

It is hardly black and white. There is a lot of controversy, even inside the supreme court on this issue.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
34,909
Reaction score
11,919
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

This is the second time you've dropped into a thread on this topic with a nonsensical one-liner. If you weren't able to explain your stance after being challenged in the other thread, what are you bringing to the table here?
Sorry but not curbing corporations access to "influencing" policy by direct money giving is legalized bribery and corruption.

As for my stance.. it is pretty well know as I have stated it many times. Corporations/companies should not be allowed to finance in secret or in public any political campaign and should not be allowed to use corporate/company money to influence political campaigns. My stance is also there is far far far too much money involved in US politics.. it is not about politics any more but about making money for yourself and your friends. On this issue, European politics is far far superior than you yanks..we do not allow corporations to fund political campaigns, because corporations cant freaking vote.

Politics is by the people for the people and corporations/companies are not people. People can vote, corporations can not. Hence any free speech issue is not relevant to corporations. Next will be that Churchs cant be barred from political campaigning (without loosing their tax breaks) .. mark my words.. that will be the next thing to fall if something is not done and I would wager you and other Conservatives would support that fully.. since the present rules hurt your base.

This is a serious blow to US democracy and the consequences could be very well be very grave. This can not be stressed enough. But I would wager that if the justices did this, were "leftist", and the Republicans were against the ruling, then the right would be crying activist judges...

I fully understand why you and your cohorts on the US right support this ruling. It means more money for your political cause, and that your money backers can use as much as they want in whatever way they want to hurt your political enemies.

And if you seriously think that foreign entities dont influence your politics dream on. A freaking Aussie has been setting the political discourse in the US since 1996 when Fox News started to air. All it requires to avoid any legal problems now is to be registered as a business in the US.

So congrats the US right, you have now near unlimited money.. who will be the first to sell out and become the Senator from Bank of America and the representative from the glorious Comcast Corporation?
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

It is hardly black and white. There is a lot of controversy, even inside the supreme court on this issue.
Yes, he was

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities." -President Obama

Its wonderful you think that Mr. Obama. Its not so great you're putting that right with your rant about the Supreme Court because its dishonest if not a flat out lie for what you're implying.

This court decision in no way allows elections to be "Bankrolled" by corporations.

At most, Corporations can now run Political Ad's. They can not givem oney directly to a campaign. So any notion of "bankrolling" an individuals election attempt is patentedly false.

Travel expenses?
Staff expenses?
Appearances?

And on and on. At most its corporations being able to put forth advertisements for a campaign, and even then it can't actually be "with" the campaign because the corporation has to do the advertising not giving moeny to allow the campaign to do it as they wish.

This is not "bankrolling" elections. That's patently false. People upset people are saying Obama lied, or at the very least mislead, have no one to be angry at but Obama for using the words he used to try and make the boogyman bigger than it is.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

Read Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsburgs, Justice Breyers, and Justice Sotomayors sections. They all partly disagreed.

"At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining selfgovernment since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics." - Justice Stevens

I don't know if their decision is a "joke" because the majority of the court obviously had an appealing arguement as well. However, I am not sure it is as cut and dry as you make it to be.
Yeah, I read it. How does that passage address what I said?
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

Sorry but not curbing corporations access to "influencing" policy by direct money giving is legalized bribery and corruption.

As for my stance.. it is pretty well know as I have stated it many times. Corporations/companies should not be allowed to finance in secret or in public any political campaign and should not be allowed to use corporate/company money to influence political campaigns. My stance is also there is far far far too much money involved in US politics.. it is not about politics any more but about making money for yourself and your friends. On this issue, European politics is far far superior than you yanks..we do not allow corporations to fund political campaigns, because corporations cant freaking vote.

Politics is by the people for the people and corporations/companies are not people. People can vote, corporations can not. Hence any free speech issue is not relevant to corporations. Next will be that Churchs cant be barred from political campaigning (without loosing their tax breaks) .. mark my words.. that will be the next thing to fall if something is not done and I would wager you and other Conservatives would support that fully.. since the present rules hurt your base.

This is a serious blow to US democracy and the consequences could be very well be very grave. This can not be stressed enough. But I would wager that if the justices did this, were "leftist", and the Republicans were against the ruling, then the right would be crying activist judges...

I fully understand why you and your cohorts on the US right support this ruling. It means more money for your political cause, and that your money backers can use as much as they want in whatever way they want to hurt your political enemies.

And if you seriously think that foreign entities dont influence your politics dream on. A freaking Aussie has been setting the political discourse in the US since 1996 when Fox News started to air. All it requires to avoid any legal problems now is to be registered as a business in the US.

So congrats the US right, you have now near unlimited money.. who will be the first to sell out and become the Senator from Bank of America and the representative from the glorious Comcast Corporation?
ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

You said all this before; all of this was taken down before. Nothing has changed. You still have no freakin' clue.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,165
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

It was an incredibly stupid decision. The idea that a corporation is a person is a completely disengenous argument.

What is hilarious is that the justices that bent and twisted every bit of logic to benefit their corporate buddies...are the same ones who always claim that the constitution is a static document and should be construed "Strictly".

What a joke....and this is an example of why their decision is an utter joke.
i agree completely.
 

Dezaad

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,058
Reaction score
2,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

Yes, he was

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities." -President Obama

Its wonderful you think that Mr. Obama. Its not so great you're putting that right with your rant about the Supreme Court because its dishonest if not a flat out lie for what you're implying.

This court decision in no way allows elections to be "Bankrolled" by corporations.

At most, Corporations can now run Political Ad's. They can not givem oney directly to a campaign. So any notion of "bankrolling" an individuals election attempt is patentedly false.

Travel expenses?
Staff expenses?
Appearances?

And on and on. At most its corporations being able to put forth advertisements for a campaign, and even then it can't actually be "with" the campaign because the corporation has to do the advertising not giving moeny to allow the campaign to do it as they wish.

This is not "bankrolling" elections. That's patently false. People upset people are saying Obama lied, or at the very least mislead, have no one to be angry at but Obama for using the words he used to try and make the boogyman bigger than it is.
I believe you honestly believe what you are saying here, otherwise I would accuse you of being disingenuous.

Running advocacy ads is the most influential thing, and the most expensive thing, that a campaign does. Corporations are now going to be able to run those advocacy ads for the campaigns. To believe that the influence of corporations has not just ballooned as a result of this change is at least naive. There is a reason the practice was outlawed to begin with, after all.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

And what of in-kind contributions from media corporations?
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

And what of in-kind contributions from media corporations?
It's just astounding, the deafening silence which always follows that question.
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,607
Reaction score
27,847
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

It was an incredibly stupid decision. The idea that a corporation is a person is a completely disengenous argument.

What is hilarious is that the justices that bent and twisted every bit of logic to benefit their corporate buddies...are the same ones who always claim that the constitution is a static document and should be construed "Strictly".

What a joke....and this is an example of why their decision is an utter joke.
Can you cite anything reputible.to support your assertions?
 

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

And what of in-kind contributions from media corporations?
How about from the courts decision. From Justice Stevens section, represent the opinion of 4/9 supreme court justices.

"In critiquing Austin’s antidistortion rationale and campaign finance regulation more generally, our colleagues place tremendous weight on the example of media corporations. See ante, at 35–38, 46; ante, at 1, 11 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.); ante, at 6 (opinion of SCALIA, J.). Yet it is not at all clear that Austin would permit §203 to be applied to them. The press plays a unique role not only in the text, history, and structure of the First Amendment but also in facilitating public discourse; as the Austin Court explained, “media corporations differ significantly from other corporations in that their resources are devoted to the collection of information and its dissemination to the public,” 494 U. S., at 667. Our colleagues have raised
some interesting and difficult questions about Congress’ authority to regulate electioneering by the press, and about how to define what constitutes the press. But that is not the case before us. Section 203 does not apply to media corporations, and even if it did, Citizens United is
not a media corporation."
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Corporation files to run for Congress: important marketing strategy questions rem

How about from the courts decision. From Justice Stevens section, represent the opinion of 4/9 supreme court justices.

"In critiquing Austin’s antidistortion rationale and campaign finance regulation more generally, our colleagues place tremendous weight on the example of media corporations. See ante, at 35–38, 46; ante, at 1, 11 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.); ante, at 6 (opinion of SCALIA, J.). Yet it is not at all clear that Austin would permit §203 to be applied to them. The press plays a unique role not only in the text, history, and structure of the First Amendment but also in facilitating public discourse; as the Austin Court explained, “media corporations differ significantly from other corporations in that their resources are devoted to the collection of information and its dissemination to the public,” 494 U. S., at 667. Our colleagues have raised
some interesting and difficult questions about Congress’ authority to regulate electioneering by the press, and about how to define what constitutes the press. But that is not the case before us. Section 203 does not apply to media corporations, and even if it did, Citizens United is
not a media corporation."
I read it. :roll: Nice little false appeal to authority with the "4/9 justices" thing. Doesn't address the question in context, being a matter of Constitutional rights being applicable to corporations or not.

They are or they aren't, when you disparage "corporate personhood" in toto. The New York Times Corporation is no more a "person" than Lockheed-Martin.
 
Top Bottom