Where do I donate?Exactly. It puts everyone on equal footing. I know a few industries like insurance, banking, financial, automobile, oil, energy, and defense that are going to pour monies in to throw Obama and these Congressional socialists from office.
Both of those entities express the opinion of the corporation or church. Not of the individuals within. And both of those types of entities are specifically mentioned as having those rights in the first amendment.That's silly.
A church is a group that has a right to religious freedom. A newspaper is a group (usually a corporation too) that has freedom of the press. A political party is a group that has a right to freedom of speech. I could go on.
One would have to go back to the declaration of independance to answer that:However the 1st amendment
The Constitution applies to everyone, not just citizens.
Which SCOTUS decisions? I'd be interested in reading the opinions.False. Many many court cases over the years have found otherwise.
Where do I donate?
WRONG.
This decision did not change the law that makes corporate and foreign contributions to candidates illegal.
Think about that for a minute.
In this global economy, where our mutuals, personal investments, are spread from the east to the west until they come back again and meet in the middle, how is this at all possible?
If "Super-American, Inc," donate s a zillion dollars to re-elect Senator John Wayne, and Super-America, Inc stock is mostly held by 3 American investment/holding companies, operating on 70% of Chinese investment, how can this not be influential in nature.
It's not slippery-slope. It's reality. I know for a fact that my investments are placed in places all over the globe. And I bet, and I hope, that whoever is on the other end of my money, are doing all they can, to influence in any way they can, anything that will benefit my investment. Why would the Chinese, or any other nation for that matter, not want the same?
The thread title is wrong too.
(Though actually it doesn't say anything about contributions anyway).
I had to laugh once when a friend of mine said that Nokia was an American company....
My bank account?
how would you have written the thread title?
Your bank account would be overseas, we're trying to keep our elections local...prevent foreign interests or monies from influence and all, you understand of course?
Both of those entities express the opinion of the corporation or church. Not of the individuals within. And both of those types of entities are specifically mentioned as having those rights in the first amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
Now one could go as far as pointing out that religion and press serve in some respect the common good.
Private corporations do not. They serve only the good of the shareholders.
You also mention political parties? - That's clever. It took some thinking to explain that.
Political parties represent the members wishes expressed for the betterment of society (according to them) and as such also serve the common good.
Which SCOTUS decisions? I'd be interested in reading the opinions.
The Massachusetts court did not go so far as to accept appellee's argument that corporations, as creatures of the State, have only those rights granted them by the State. See Brief for Appellee 4, 23-25. Cf. MR. JUSTICE WHITE'S dissent, post, at 809; MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST'S dissent, post, p. 822. The court below recognized that such an extreme position could not be reconciled either with the many decisions holding state laws invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment when they infringe protected speech by corporate bodies, e. g., Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977); Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (1976); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922 (1975); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546 (1975); Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra; Kingsley Int'l Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 360 U.S. 684 (1959); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952), or with decisions affording corporations the protection of constitutional guarantees other than the First Amendment. E. g., United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1977) (Fifth Amendment double jeopardy); G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338, 353 (1977) (Fourth Amendment)....In cases where corporate speech has been denied the shelter of the First Amendment, there is no suggestion that the reason was because a corporation rather than an individual or association was involved. E. g., Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50 (1976); Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (1973); Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436 (1957). Corporate identity has been determinative in several decisions denying corporations certain constitutional rights, such as the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361, 382 -386 (1911), or equality with individuals in the enjoyment of a right to privacy, California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 65 -67 (1974); United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 651 -652 (1950), but this is not because the States are free to define the rights of their creatures without constitutional limit. Otherwise, corporations could be denied the protection of all constitutional guarantees, including due process and the equal protection of the laws. Certain "purely personal" guarantees, such as the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, are unavailable to corporations and other organizations because the "historic function" of the particular guarantee has been limited to the protection of individuals. United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 698 -701 (1944). Whether or not a particular guarantee is "purely personal" or is unavailable to corporations for some other reason depends on the nature, history, and purpose of the particular constitutional provision.
[ Footnote 15 ] It has been settled for almost a century that corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886); see Covington & Lexington Turnpike R. Co. v. Sandford, 164 U.S. 578 (1896).
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
Both of those entities express the opinion of the corporation or church. Not of the individuals within. And both of those types of entities are specifically mentioned as having those rights in the first amendment.
Now one could go as far as pointing out that religion and press serve in some respect the common good.
Private corporations do not. They serve only the good of the shareholders.
You also mention political parties? - That's clever. It took some thinking to explain that.
Political parties represent the members wishes expressed for the betterment of society (according to them) and as such also serve the common good.
Which SCOTUS decisions? I'd be interested in reading the opinions.
how can this not be influential in nature.
Exactly. How are we going to keep our American corporations, operating on foreign capitol, from buying our politicians? Who's behind the corporate curtain? Some good ol' boy from St. Louis? Probably not. Most likely he's from Bejing or Dubai.
Is the message here that it is now acceptable for American companies to buy politicians but unacceptable for foreign companies to buy them?
What's "American" anymore?
Any company big enough to afford political contributions is running on global dollars.
Why would a company invest in a politician in the first place? Patriotic obligation? Sacrifice return for investment? Explain THAT to the stockholders. Got any ideas people?
They BUY influence. And now, thanks to our legislative branch of the Supreme Court, it's ok to do so.
Supreme Court Upholds First Amendmenthow would you have written the thread title?
Supreme Court Upholds First Amendment
please point out which American citizens had lost their right to free speech which you would have us believe had been restored
please point out which American citizens had lost their right to free speech which you would have us believe had been restored
When ACORN has the right to get involved in politics and Exxon doesn't, then Exxon has been stripped of the same rights that ACORN has been given.
Let everybody do it, or let nobody do it. There can't be an in between.
that article said nothing about any citizens losing their right to speak freely
try again
LOL! When in the hell has EXXON not been involved in American politics???
They're neck-deep in American politics. And have been for decades. EXXON can spend more money in 5 minutes than ACORN can spend in 5 years.
Do you think the "freedom of the press" is only for newspapers and broadcast companies (usually corporations)? Or can other organizations also publish and broadcast their views?please point out which American citizens had lost their right to free speech which you would have us believe had been restored
Good point. So now that we've agreed that they could do so before, why is there so much fear-mongering over this decision?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?