Understanding Citizens United

[misterman]

The First Amendment is very clear in its language: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. You have been provided with an example where there are practical limits placed on that right and it does not mean whaT you insist it means. For you to continue to pretend that these limits do not exist is to play ostrich and jam your head into the sand.

You are doing the same thing, over and over - telling me that there can be exceptions. And I agree. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether your particular exception is a good one.

That does not even make sense? Is not allowable by who?

The Constitution. Or, more precisely, the courts. But it's also me saying that your logic is faulty.

Your condescending hostility is indeed part and parcel of your posts. If you do not want it mentioned, abstain from its usage. Otherwise, its fair game.

If I seem that way, I apologize. You should know that you're doing the same thing.

If one does not have citizenship, how can one then have rights of a citizen as laid out in the Constitution since it is discussing the rights of citizens?

Constitutional rights don't apply only to citizens, or even only to people.

The First Amendment limits government power. It doesn't protect citizens, or people, per se, but rather, it protects speech. That's how it is written. It applies to all speech, regardless of its source, citizen or otherwise.

 

[misterman]

More examples of how very practical concerns limit a basic freedom on an everyday basis. Exactly.

Right.

And your exception is not, and should not, be on that list.

 

[misterman]

Of course you can -- all kinds of speech is banned (subject to legal penalty):

1. Political campaign speech by a church (which you've foolishly disputed)

2. Slanderous speech

3. Speech intended to incite a riot

4. Profane speech (in certain public venues)

5. Speech that disturbs the peace (volume, time of day, location, etc)

6. Treasonous speech
​

The cornerstones of your argument rest on quicksand....

No, I'm assuming too much from you.

I'll have to be more precise. You cannot ban speech based on the source of the speech, including whether it is a citizen or individual or not, because the First Amendment refers to speech, not to people. That was my point.

Of course there are exceptions. Yours, however, is not one of them. Here is the basic way such exceptions are determined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

CU clearly doesn't match that.

 

[Cameron]

Shareholders aren't spending the money, the executives are.

even worse.

They should decide how they spend it. This is no different than any other corporate governance issue. Shareholders who don't like what exec do can vote against them or sell their shares.

Investors are lazy, and likely don't pay complete attention to what the CEOs of every company they invest in are doing in terms of spending on political advertising. Because involvement in politics isn't one of even the lesser reasons for investing in companies, there is too much opportunity for abuse.

Executives should theoretically only be spending money for the ultimate benefit of the shareholders. But unlike many other types of investments that CEOs have the authority to make, political benefits are far more subjective and far-reaching and so should be left to individual shareholders.

 

[misterman]

even worse.

Irrelevant. They can spend the money how they want.

Investors are lazy, and likely don't pay complete attention to what the CEOs of every company they invest in are doing in terms of spending on political advertising. Because involvement in politics isn't one of even the lesser reasons for investing in companies, there is too much opportunity for abuse.

Wow. Laziness is one of the worst arguments for violating that First Amendment that I've run into so far.

It's consistent with the attitude that the voters are too lazy to think though.

Executives should theoretically only be spending money for the ultimate benefit of the shareholders. But unlike many other types of investments that CEOs have the authority to make, political benefits are far more subjective and should be left to individual shareholders.

I urge you to tell them that. In the meantime, you have no authority to force them to.

 

[haymarket]

from misterman

Constitutional rights don't apply only to citizens, or even only to people.

Oh really!!!!!! So who other than an US citizen has constitutional rights? Amendment I, which is but one sentence in length, specifically mentions THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE. Other Amendments specifically mention THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE or PERSONS.

 

[Karl]

The corporate officers argument is self-defeating. If corporations themselves don't "speak," then who does? It's still individuals, who we will all agree have free speech rights, deciding to speak on behalf of the organization.

Whose money is being spent by the corporate officers? Their own? :doh

 

[misterman]

from misterman



Oh really!!!!!! So who other than an US citizen has constitutional rights? Amendment I, which is but one sentence in length, specifically mentions THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE. Other Amendments specifically mention THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE or PERSONS.

Okay...others specifically mention groups. And speech specifically mentions neither. Nevertheless, it doesn't really matter. Even if you're right, the idea that the rights of people evaporate as soon as they join a group is silly. We refer to groups as singular - like, say "Occupy Wall Street" - but they are still composed of people. A corporation is more or less just a bank account owned and run by people, who have rights. It's like putting a bumper sticker on your car - the car doesn't have free speech rights, but you do.

By your twisted logic, the government could ban all speech by political parties, interest groups like the NAACP or ACLU or MoveOn.org, etc. They aren't people. It could ban Micheal Moore's films because a group of people (a corporation, in fact) made and distributed and paid for them. The government could shut down this board because it's not a person. The list goes on and on.

It's a non-issue.

 

[misterman]

Whose money is being spent by the corporate officers? Their own? :doh

It doesn't matter.

Whose money is a congressional candidate spending when he runs ads? Whose money is a political party chairman spending when he runs ads?

 

[Cameron]

Irrelevant. They can spend the money how they want.

No, they actually and legally can't.

Wow. Laziness is one of the worst arguments for violating that First Amendment that I've run into so far.

Not if you don't consider corporations to have a right of free speech, which I don't.

It's consistent with the attitude that the voters are too lazy to think though.

Not really. Why should investors have to worry about how corporations will act politically when they go to invest in a company? Corporations shouldn't be involved in politics, only their constituents should. Placing that burden on them is unreasonable and enabling of abuse. Totally different from the obligation of voters to be informed when they go into a voting booth.

 

[haymarket]

Okay...others specifically mention groups. And speech specifically mentions neither. Nevertheless, it doesn't really matter. Even if you're right, the idea that the rights of people evaporate as soon as they join a group is silly.

Never said they did. The First Amendment - one sentence - specifically states that it is talking about THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.

There was no citizen being deprived of any First Amendment rights that CU needed to rectify.

If you know of one, please tell us who that citizen was.

 

[misterman]

No, they actually and legally can't.

If they can't, it's not due to any restriction on free speech.

Not if you don't consider corporations to have a right of free speech, which I don't.

That's the topic of discussion though. Do you have an argument for why you believe they don't?

Not really. Why should investors have to worry about how corporations will act politically when they go to invest in a company? Corporations shouldn't be involved in politics, only their constituents should. Placing that burden on them is unreasonable and enabling of abuse. Totally different from the obligation of voters to be informed when they go into a voting booth.

Whether or not corporations are involved in politics is not your business. It is the shareholders' business, just like any other issue. Shareholders who are too lazy to pay attention to what a corporation is doing can choose not to invest in it. That goes for every activity of a company.

 

[Karl]

[...] You cannot ban speech based on the source of the speech, including whether it is a citizen or individual or not, because the First Amendment refers to speech, not to people. That was my point.

Inanimate objects -- such as corporations -- can have no natural or enumerated rights.

 

[misterman]

Never said they did. The First Amendment - one sentence - specifically states that it is talking about THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.

Not quite, but whatever - I just said that this clearly applies to people even when they join together as a group or pool their money and act as a unit.

There was no citizen being deprived of any First Amendment rights that CU needed to rectify.

If you know of one, please tell us who that citizen was.

Here's a partial list:

Citizens United : Dedicated to restoring our government to citizen control.

Then there are its members.

 

[misterman]

Inanimate objects -- such as corporations -- can have no natural or enumerated rights.

Again, that's like saying the government can ban bumper stickers because your car - an inanimate object - has no rights.

Or that a political party - an inanimate object - has no right to speech.

Or a church - an inanimate object - has no freedom of religion.

Or a newspaper - an inanimate object - has no freedom of the press.

Or a corporation has no right to an attorney to defend itself in court.

Or that "Occupy Wall Street" has no speech rights because it's not a person.

Or that DebatePolitics could be shut down by the government because it's not a person.

 

[ecofarm]

Inanimate objects -- such as corporations -- can have no natural or enumerated rights.

What about unions?

 

[haymarket]

Not quite, but whatever - I just said that this clearly applies to people even when they join together as a group or pool their money and act as a unit.



Here's a partial list:

Citizens United : Dedicated to restoring our government to citizen control.

Then there are its members.

What citizen on that list could not exercise their right of freedom of speech?

 

[misterman]

What citizen on that list could not exercise their right of freedom of speech?

If you made a film about a political issue, with the help of a corporation, and you tried to distribute that film, and the government came and said "don't you dare show that film or we'll prosecute you" would you consider your free speech rights to be violated? I think you would.

 

[haymarket]

If you made a film about a political issue, with the help of a corporation, and you tried to distribute that film, and the government came and said "don't you dare show that film or we'll prosecute you" would you consider your free speech rights to be violated? I think you would.

Again, I ask you, which specific citizen on that list was not able to exercise their right of freedom of speech?

 

[misterman]

Again, I ask you, which specific citizen on that list was not able to exercise their right of freedom of speech?

All of them on that list.

I'd also like you to answer my question.

Micheal Moore made alot of political films. But he made and distributed them using corporations. So would you say the government could forbid them from being shown in theatres?

 

[misterman]

Here's a thought experiment.

You create a robot, or computer program, to make political statements automatically, without any further input from you.

Is the speech protected by the First Amendment?

 

[haymarket]

All of them on that list.

The first on the list is David Bossie. What right of his regarding his free speech did he not have that needed fixing through Citizens United?

 

[misterman]

The first on the list is David Bossie. What right of his regarding his free speech did he not have that needed fixing through Citizens United?

He and the other staff and members of CU wanted to distribute a film about politics but were forbidden. Doesn't that sound like a free speech violation to you?

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Whose money is being spent by the corporate officers? Their own? :doh

If the shareholders don't like it, they can put a stop to it. This is why I doubt companies like Coca-Cola will be doing much electioneering. However, the point still stands. It is individuals expressing themselves.

 

[haymarket]

He and the other staff and members of CU wanted to distribute a film about politics but were forbidden. Doesn't that sound like a free speech violation to you?

Let me get this straight:
1- Bossie could not make a movie
2- he could not show this movie

is that right?