Understanding Citizens United

[misterman]

It has been so (suppressed) in the recent past; therefore, only recently are you correct

I'm correct?

Does this mean you've finally dropped the "personhood" strawman?

And it wasn't suppressed federally until 2003, as you know.

 

[Karl]

[...] My argument, which is consistent with Buckley, is that money donated to a campaign can be limited because it's not paying for speech [...]

From Buckley:

I.B.1.(a) We find that, under the rigorous standard of review established by our prior decisions, the weighty interests served by restricting the size of financial contributions to political candidates are sufficient to justify the limited effect upon First Amendment freedoms caused by the $1,000 contribution ceiling.

Buckley v. Valeo

 

[Karl]

I'm correct?

No, actually you were wrong in that post, since it was so broad-based. You kinda did the stopped clock thing

But I'm going to give it up, at least for the night -- we've beat this horse pretty badly, and your efforts have been noteworthy

 

[misterman]

From Buckley:

My argument is consistent with that.

 

[misterman]

No, actually you were wrong in that post, since it was so broad-based. You kinda did the stopped clock thing

But I'm going to give it up, at least for the night -- we've beat this horse pretty badly, and your efforts have been noteworthy

As have yours. I think you're still confused about my arguments, and wrong about your own, but I do appreciate someone who argues from a position of knowledge (rare around here) and doesn't throw in insults left and right.

Goodnight. For now.

 

[haymarket]

He could make it, but he couldn't show it on TV, nor run ads to promote it.

Can you imagine that? Someone hauled into court for daring to promote and air a movie because it was about politics and involved a corporation in it's production. It's so blatantly a violation of free speech.

and what would stop him from showing it on TV or running advertising for it?

The way I read the law, he could both have advertised it and shown it on TV.

 

[Henrin]

For the purposes of my argument -- for-profit corporations -- you generally do. I will welcome any examples you can provide to the contrary.

Close Corporations do not sell stock and to my knowledge the majority of them are for profit. Bechtel is a wonderful example of one in fact that has been around for more than a century.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

The shareholders did not grant the right (nor did the customers).

Is it okay to defraud people until they tell you to stop?

If the shareholders have the power to stop it. It is their responsibility. Not the government's.

 

[Karl]

Close Corporations do not sell stock [...]

They do not sell stock to the general public.

They still have shares of stock, and therefore shareholders.

I will grant that the odds of shareholder misrepresentation are greatly reduced in such a corporate structure.

 

[What if...?]

To spend it in furtherance of the corporation's business.

Is electing a particular public official, or defeating one, furtherance of the corporation's business?

Actually yes. Corporate campaign activities are INVESTMENTS. I don't believe they could do it otherwise, considering the officers are required by law to maximise returns for investors.

And another thing. Corp donations don't technically go to candidates. That's forbidden. But every single dollar spent producing and airing ads is a dollar the campaign itself didn't have to spend.


If its illegal for corps to donate directly, it makes no sense for them to be allowed to do themselves EXACTLY what the campaign would have done had the corp given the money directly to the campaign. Its a loophole, nothing more.

 

[What if...?]

It bears repeating:

Could have maybe. Didn't though. And the date is 1990. I think they would have gotten around to doing so if that was really the potential.

And lets not forget that both parties had abandoned the element of the suit that would have required Austin and the others to be re-examined.

It was giving the plaintiffs something they never asked for that ruffles so many feathers.

 

[What if...?]

But it did overturn Austin.

Let me ask YOU - do YOU think those things he said were possible under Austin?

Only if the materials in question rose to the definition of "electioneering".

All political communication does NOT amount to electioneering and therefore wouldn't trigger Austin.

A documentary about Hillary would not. An anti-Hillary hit piece during an election cycle would. Off-season or during a race in which she is not a candidate, even a hit piece would not.

But then there would be no reason for them to do it in the first place.

See the distinction?

CU wanted to release their film right before the primary. McCain/Feingold made doing so illegal. They wanted that part, and only that part, overturned.

The elumination of all limits on electioneering spending by corporations WAS NOT part of the original suit. It was a completely unsolicited "bonus" handed out by the majority opinion of the court.

And again, if a corporation (which is not allowed to contribute directly to a campaign) is allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money doing EXACTLY what a campaign does with direct contributions, then the simple reality is they are donating to the campaign itself for all intents and purposes.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

So what if the speech counts as "electioneering"? This speech is by definition political, just a subset of it. Again, whether or not the film was a "hit-piece" is irrelevant. Personally, I only support banning speech when it is responsible for directly inciting people causing serious harm to others, such as yelling "fire" in a movie theater or slander (which does and should have very narrow applications). Giving ICBM launch codes to the enemy wouldn't be protected either be treason. In these cases speech creates a direct harm or is specifically addressed by the Constitution. Otherwise, the effects of speech are very nebulous, and it is up to individuals to interpret the meaning of what is being said. The state has no business controlling the marketplace of ideas. The notion that it can or has the right to try to interpret the something as subjective as the meaning of speech is ridiculous, and yes, I find obscenity laws to be stupid. Yes, the 1st Amendment does have exceptions, but you cannot poke holes in the Amendment whenever you want. If this was the case why would we have a written constitution? Why not just do what Britain does and go by whatever the government put into place.

 

[Cameron]

You should read through the thread and respond to my points before you say this.

I don't believe you have made anything other than conclusory allegations that corporations are afforded rights by the Constitution. If you disagree, please point to where you have backed up such a statement with Constitutional interpretation.

 

[Henrin]

They do not sell stock to the general public.

They still have shares of stock, and therefore shareholders.

I will grant that the odds of shareholder misrepresentation are greatly reduced in such a corporate structure.

They trade stock among themselves like anyone could do. When we talk of selling stock we are talking about the stock exchange.

 

[Karl]

They trade stock among themselves like anyone could do. When we talk of selling stock we are talking about the stock exchange.

Most of us have been talking about shareholders. You're talking about selling stock.

 

[Karl]

[...] . Yes, the 1st Amendment does have exceptions, but you cannot poke holes in the Amendment whenever you want. If this was the case why would we have a written constitution? [...]

Since a corporation is not a person, it has no natural rights independent of the people that own it. Therefore the Constitution does not apply to a corporation (despite SCOTUS rulings to the contrary).

"corporations are people, my friend!" -- Mitt Romney

 

[Henrin]

Most of us have been talking about shareholders. You're talking about selling stock.

Which involves the stock exchange, this involves giving people in your company stock. Many of these companies don't even do that, btw. Its all just if they want to it do it or not.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Since a corporation is not a person, it has no natural rights independent of the people that own it. Therefore the Constitution does not apply to a corporation (despite SCOTUS rulings to the contrary).

"corporations are people, my friend!" -- Mitt Romney

Karl, I have said this 50 different ways, and I really do not think that there is a simpler way to explain it. Whether or not corporations are people is completely irrelevant. The actual language of the 1st Amendment does not talk about the positive rights of the people to engage in speech. The amendment expressly and pretty much categorically bans government restrictions on speech. Free speech, as defined in the Constitution is a negative right. The protection does not stem from a person's right to do something. The protection comes from restricting the government or another coercive agent. The speech could be coming from you, me, the homeless person on the street corner, Bigfoot, a voice in the sky, or even people speaking on behalf of an organization. It's protected. The Founders protected speech like this, because the right to free speech is not just about the right to shout words into oblivion. People have the right to listen to and consider the ideas of others. Speech is all about the relationship between the speaker and the audience. Even if we construed the right of expression to be a positive right as it is in the Constitution, which it clearly isn't, censorship would still infringe upon the rights of those who want to listen. It doesn't matter who the message comes from, even if it's from a corporation.

 

[haymarket]

You are wrong. The First Amendment is one sentence long and in that sentence is very specific language about "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE".

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

You are wrong. The First Amendment is one sentence long and in that sentence is very specific language about "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE".

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.

That's pretty weak, Haymarket. "Right of the people" is well after the free speech clause in a separate clause. It's been a while since grammar lessons, but how does "right of the people" alter the free speech clause?

 

[haymarket]

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.

That's pretty weak, Haymarket. "Right of the people" is well after the free speech clause in a separate clause. It's been a while since grammar lessons, but how does "right of the people" alter the free speech clause?

It is ALL part of the same ONE sentence. The listing of those rights and the mention in the same sentence of the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE leaves no doubt that these rights belong to the PEOPLE as it clearly states.

Our Bill of Rights is there as the rights of the people. Go back to our own Declaration of Independence and read

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It clearly states that these rights are in connection to MEN. It is the opinion of the Founders that MEN have these rights. People. Citizens.

Look at the Virginia Declaration of Rights which also was written by the Founders and a source for our Bill of Rights - from Wikipedia

The Virginia Declaration of Rights, well-known to Madison, had already been a strong influence on the American Revolution ("all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people ...";[7] also "a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish [the government]"). It had shaped the drafting of the United States Declaration of Independence a decade before the drafting of the Constitution, proclaiming that "all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights of which ... [they cannot divest;] namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

Again, in the words of the Founders, it is MEN who have rights. If you do not like that word - citizens, human beings, people. Living flesh and blood creatures who are citizens of this land.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

It is ALL part of the same ONE sentence. The listing of those rights and the mention in the same sentence of the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE leaves no doubt that these rights belong to the PEOPLE as it clearly states.

It is after a semicolon and only talks about the "right of the people to peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances." The "right of people" is followed by an "of" meaning that the phrase is altered only by the last two clauses. If "rights of the people" applied to all of the clauses in the 1st Amendment, why would it be so awkwardly worded? These were smart men. I think they would have known some basic syntax. Honestly, Haymarket this is basic grammar. If you wrote this text, and told a grade-schooler that it was meant to fit what you are trying to say it does, even that kid wouldn't think it sounded right. I shouldn't have to explain this. The Constitution does not line up perfectly with your beliefs of what government should and shouldn't be allowed to do, nor does it with mine. You are reaching, and it's not convincing anyone.

Our Bill of Rights is there as the rights of the people. Go back to our own Declaration of Independence and read

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It clearly states that these rights are in connection to MEN. It is the opinion of the Founders that MEN have these rights. People. Citizens.

Look at the Virginia Declaration of Rights which also was written by the Founders and a source for our Bill of Rights - from Wikipedia


Again, in the words of the Founders, it is MEN who have rights. If you do not like that word - citizens, human beings, people. Living flesh and blood creatures who are citizens of this land.

So now you're an originalist?

What these documents say is not reflected in the actual text of the 1st Amendment. Even then, construing the right to free expression as a negative right still protects the rights of people to hear and engage is different ideas.

 

[haymarket]

If "rights of the people" applied to all of the clauses in the 1st Amendment, why would it be so awkwardly worded?

You are reading like a person from the 21st century. It was indeed awkwardly worded by our eyes and how we would write today.

I see you were impotent to negate my points about both the statement of rights in the Dof Ind and in the Virginia statement on rights.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

You are reading like a person from the 21st century. It was indeed awkwardly worded by our eyes and how we would write today.

Oh come on. How would this be any less awkward in the 18th century? Definitions and grammar rules change over time, but when was it ever grammatically correct for a phrase to alter clauses before and after it like you claim the "right of the people" does in the 1st Amendment. Do you have any evidence to back this up? Please do not bring the "rights of man" thing that you have been bringing up. Making the 1st Amendment a negative right that protects corporations as well as people does nothing to negate its importance or focus on protecting the rights of the people. As I said, the right is just as important to the audience as the speaker, making the source of the speech irrelevant from a constitutional standpoint. It does not contradict the Declaration of Independence or the Virginia Statement of Rights, neither of which impacts constitutional law. You are still desperately reaching here.

I see you were impotent to negate my points about both the statement of rights in the Dof Ind and in the Virginia statement on rights.

I addressed this. People have just as much a right to listen and engage ideas that they have heard as people have the right to say them. Both are integral parts to protecting free speech.