Understanding Citizens United

[Karl]

and if my brothers and I-who own a corporation want to use that corporation to point out that obama is a turd that should be allowed [...]

As long as those who provide the money to be spent are aware that it is for that purpose, yes.

 

[What if...?]

and if my brothers and I-who own a corporation want to use that corporation to point out that obama is a turd that should be allowed

of course unions don't want to share that power with corporations

Yes, but if YOU want to paint on the rock you AND your brothers own that your brothers SUCK, THEY might object to your use of the groups rock.

That's the main distinction I see most people make. AARP directly represents the views of all those who fund it. GE represents the views of the deciding officers. And by law in the interest of profit alone, as corporate officers are required by law to maximize returns on investments. Pretty sure purely ideological contributions would thus be expressly forbidden.

 

[misterman]

As long as those who provide the money to be spent are aware that it is for that purpose, yes.

Nope. No law requires that. You may propose one if you wish.

 

[misterman]

Yes, but if YOU want to paint on the rock you AND your brothers own that your brothers SUCK, THEY might object to your use of the groups rock.

Which they are free to do.

The government can't ban the painting of the rock though, for that purpose or any other. And this was never the issue in Citizen's United anyway.

That's the main distinction I see most people make. AARP directly represents the views of all those who fund it.

Bull. AARP members can and do disagree about some things it does. That's normal.

GE represents the views of the deciding officers.

GE's shareholders elect the officers - AARP's members don't. And like AARP, GE's shareholders are free to end their relationship with the entity at any time.

And by law in the interest of profit alone, as corporate officers are required by law to maximize returns on investments. Pretty sure purely ideological contributions would thus be expressly forbidden.

Not if political activities were part of maximizing ROI.

But hey, you just banned the annual corporate Christmas party too - no profit in that either, ya scrooge.

 

[What if...?]

Which they are free to do.

The government can't ban the painting of the rock though, for that purpose or any other. And this was never the issue in Citizen's United anyway.



Bull. AARP members can and do disagree about some things it does. That's normal.



GE's shareholders elect the officers - AARP's members don't. And like AARP, GE's shareholders are free to end their relationship with the entity at any time.



Not if political activities were part of maximizing ROI.

But hey, you just banned the annual corporate Christmas party too - no profit in that either, ya scrooge.

Nah, compqny christmas parties are about team building and morale, both of which are important to bottom lines.

 

[misterman]

Nah, compqny christmas parties are about team building and morale, both of which are important to bottom lines.

But did they get permission from the shareholders for that party first?

 

[Karl]

Nope. No law requires that. You may propose one if you wish.

Until Austin was overturned, there indeed was a law against that. Furthermore, that type of law is what is being discussed here.... so, discuss, not dismiss.

 

[Karl]

[...] Nope. Speech is protected. Doesn't matter whether it comes from individuals joined as a corporation or [...]

If GE pays for a massive Republican ad buy, is that speech coming from individuals that joined? Is it representative of the political voice of the shareholders and customers as a whole?

 

[misterman]

Until Austin was overturned, there indeed was a law against that. Furthermore, that type of law is what is being discussed here.... so, discuss, not dismiss.

I don't think the law in the Austin case required corporations to get permission from anyone to engage in political speech. It simply banned such speech. But only in Michigan.

I've been discussing such a law for a while now here. I think it's clear that I oppose it.

 

[misterman]

If GE pays for a massive Republican ad buy, is that speech coming from individuals that joined? Is it representative of the political voice of the shareholders and customers as a whole?

It doesn't matter. It's speech.

 

[Karl]

It doesn't matter. It's speech.

The Supreme Court has held that money = political speech. (Buckley v. Valeo)

Therefore, in a for-profit corporation, the only way it can speak politically is to use other people's money, likely in a fashion that those other people did not intend.

Therefore, the corporation is not speaking for the people that constitute it, as a group, but possibly (50/50) against them.

Therefore, the corporation is an independent entity. A person, with the full panoply of rights accorded persons, such as the right to vote, and the right to life.

Correct?

 

[Karl]

I don't think the law in the Austin case required corporations to get permission from anyone to engage in political speech. It simply banned such speech. [...]

Not exactly. It banned corporate political speech paid for out of general treasury funds. It allowed corporate political speech paid for out of a segregated fund designated for that specific purpose (a PAC, for example).

AUSTIN V. MICH. CHAMBER OF COMM., 494 U. S. 652 :: Volume 494 :: 1990 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

 

[Karl]

Nah, compqny christmas parties are about team building and morale, both of which are important to bottom lines.

But did they get permission from the shareholders for that party first?

The topic is political speech.... specifically, electioneering (advocating for or against a specific party or candidate).

 

[misterman]

The Supreme Court has held that money = political speech. (Buckley v. Valeo)

The court ruled that a restriction on spending on speech (which is obviously designed to restrict speech itself) is not allowable under the First Amendment.

Therefore, in a for-profit corporation, the only way it can speak politically is to use other people's money, likely in a fashion that those other people did not intend.

That's not the government's business.

Therefore, the corporation is not speaking for the people that constitute it, as a group, but possibly (50/50) against them.

Therefore, the corporation is an independent entity. A person, with the full panoply of rights accorded persons, such as the right to vote, and the right to life.

Wow. Do I really have to explain the absurdity of that argument?

 

[misterman]

The topic is political speech.... specifically, electioneering (advocating for or against a specific party or candidate).

Sorry, but you can't just declare that either. The topic is the claim that corporations should ask customers or shareholders for permission to spend its money.

 

[misterman]

Not exactly. It banned corporate political speech paid for out of general treasury funds. It allowed corporate political speech paid for out of a segregated fund designated for that specific purpose (a PAC, for example).

Yes. Exactly what I said. It did not require permission to use corporate funds, it simply banned use of corporate funds.

 

[What if...?]

I don't think the law in the Austin case required corporations to get permission from anyone to engage in political speech. It simply banned such speech. But only in Michigan.

I've been discussing such a law for a while now here. I think it's clear that I oppose it.

It forbade political activities paid for from a corps general funds. It allowed a special fund.

 

[misterman]

It forbade political activities paid for from a corps general funds. It allowed a special fund.

Right. That special fund has no connection to the corporation's treasury. No money from the corporation can go into the fund. The special fund (a PAC) must get every dime from voluntary contributions from individuals, like shareholders or employees of the corporation.

 

[1Perry]

Yes, but if YOU want to paint on the rock you AND your brothers own that your brothers SUCK, THEY might object to your use of the groups rock.

That's the main distinction I see most people make. AARP directly represents the views of all those who fund it.

There is NO way that all members agree with everything they do. I just turned 50 and I have no desire to join up because of the positions they sometimes take. That's my option. It would be foolsih to argue that the government should force them to stop doing the things I dislike.

GE represents the views of the deciding officers. And by law in the interest of profit alone, as corporate officers are required by law to maximize returns on investments. Pretty sure purely ideological contributions would thus be expressly forbidden.

GE gives away a ton of money to charities. Shouldn't stock holders that disagree with this be able to also get the government stop them?

 

[misterman]

There is NO way that all members agree with everything they do. I just turned 50 and I have no desire to join up because of the positions they sometimes take. That's my option. It would be foolsih to argue that the government should force them to stop doing the things I dislike.

Yes. In fact, on a side note, can you imagine the possibilities? If enough people like you joined, and then used What if's law to control what it says, you could quite literally take it over, or any other organization with open membership.

 

[Karl]

[...] The topic is the claim that corporations should ask customers or shareholders for permission to spend its money.

Strawman.

The topic is the claim that corporations should ask customers or shareholders for permission to spend its general fund money on electioneering.

 

[Karl]

I don't think the law in the Austin case required corporations to get permission from anyone to engage in political speech. It simply banned such speech. [...]

Not exactly. It banned corporate political speech paid for out of general treasury funds. It allowed corporate political speech paid for out of a segregated fund designated for that specific purpose (a PAC, for example).

AUSTIN V. MICH. CHAMBER OF COMM., 494 U. S. 652 :: Volume 494 :: 1990 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Yes. Exactly what I said. It did not require permission to use corporate funds, it simply banned use of corporate funds.

You are now intentionally misrepresenting the facts of the case.

 

[Karl]

[...] GE gives away a ton of money to charities. Shouldn't stock holders that disagree with this be able to also get the government stop them?

The thread is about spending money on electioneering. While hypotheticals can sometimes be useful in making a point, they should at least be on topic

 

[misterman]

Strawman.

The topic is the claim that corporations should ask customers or shareholders for permission to spend its general fund money on electioneering.

Fine.

Here is my argument against that: expecting corporations to ask permission to spend money on electioneering is just as bizarre as expecting them to ask permission to spend money on anything else.

 

[misterman]

The thread is about spending money on electioneering. While hypotheticals can sometimes be useful in making a point, they should at least be on topic

This is exactly on topic. It is a hypothetical that is completely useful in making the point.