Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
As I said, in the old days liberals wanted more free speech. Whatever happened to thsoe people??
corporations aren't people.
and most of the conservatives i know agree with that...
except for the most rightwingnutty of wingnuts.
They're wingnuts who also don't know anything about their First Amendment OR corporate law.
Corporations as fictitious entities already had free speech rights for the purposes of commerce, that being the sole purpose for their existence and "association", if one really must use that term.
Why the fringe types fail to grasp that a legal fiction constructed for a single purpose should have rights limited to that purpose is beyond me.
I never said it was one thing or the other.
I said it was both.
A democracy is what a republic is.
There are reasons the right pumps this propaganda into the right wing minions.
If lies are allowed to hang in the air without challenge they will be taken advantage of later.
Please understand there is a reason this proaganda needs to be challenged.
Dont help them spread the lie by chidding me for outing it.
SUMMARY OF CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
SUMMARY
- In a 5-4 decision, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions have the same political speech rights as individuals under the First Amendment.
- Additionally, in an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that the disclaimer and disclosure requirements associated with electioneering communications are constitutional.fwiw - Citizens United is a nonprofit corporationHOLDING AND ANALYSIS
Independent Expenditures by Corporations
The Court overruled Austin, striking down § 441b's ban on corporate independent expenditures. It also struck down the part of McConnell that upheld BCRA § 203's extension of § 441b's restrictions on independent corporate expenditures.
The Court held that the government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity. No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.
Much more at link.Facial Challenge to § 441b. In considering the facial challenge, the Court applied strict scrutiny; thus requiring the government to demonstrate that the statute served a compelling interest and was narrowly tailored to meet that interest. A facial challenge requires the Court to look at the law and determine if it is unconstitutional as written.
In noting the need for strict scrutiny, the Court stated that a ban on independent expenditures is a ban on speech. In its analysis, the Court found that prior to Austin, the First Amendment applied to corporations (First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765) and the protection was extended to the context of free speech (NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S 415).
In Austin, the Court held that antidistortion was a compelling government interest that justified a ban on independent election expenditures by corporations and unions. It ruled that large aggregations of wealth, accumulated with the help of the corporate form, may have corrosive or distorting effects, thus justifying a ban on corporate independent expenditures. The Citizens United Court reasoned that differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment and there is no support for the view that the Amendment's original meaning would permit suppressing media corporations' free speech. Austin, it found, interferes with the open marketplace of ideas protected by the First Amendment. As a result of this reasoning, the Court was not persuaded by the government's arguments on (1) anticorruption and (2) shareholder protection.
It's a good argument. If the government can suppress Citizens United, it can suppress the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (PBS and NPR) or ABC, FOX, CNN, CBS or NBC or anyone anywhere anytime etc etc etc.
Corporations are not people.
The people who run them can vote already IF they are citizens.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious.
Corporations are associations of people. As such they ought to have the same rights, including political speech.
corporations aren't people.
and most of the conservatives i know agree with that...
except for the most rightwingnutty of wingnuts.
They're wingnuts who also don't know anything about their First Amendment OR corporate law.
Corporations as fictitious entities already had free speech rights for the purposes of commerce, that being the sole purpose for their existence and "association", if one really must use that term.
Why the fringe types fail to grasp that a legal fiction constructed for a single purpose should have rights limited to that purpose is beyond me.
So, the ones that are created to espouse a political position, like Move On and Citizens United should have the right to spend money to advocate that political cause? Glad to know we agree on something, even if you thought we did not.
They're wingnuts who also don't know anything about their First Amendment OR corporate law.
Corporations as fictitious entities already had free speech rights for the purposes of commerce, that being the sole purpose for their existence and "association", if one really must use that term.
Why the fringe types fail to grasp that a legal fiction constructed for a single purpose should have rights limited to that purpose is beyond me.
So, the ones that are created to espouse a political position, like Move On and Citizens United should have the right to spend money to advocate that political cause? Glad to know we agree on something, even if you thought we did not.
Actually I do agree with you on that - to a point. These are openly political organizations, usually based on grassroots membership (at least in theory, similar to the NRA and other groups who use "membership" as both political clout and a fundraising tool), and most important they are formed under and scrutinized under specific regulations for that purpose.
Do I think their money is speech either? No. Would I want them participating in the political process minus those specific regulations? No. Do I think they're a good idea as opposed to a legal one? Not entirely.
Is there anyone here who thinks it is good for the US democracy to have this in place?
So, the ones that are created to espouse a political position, like Move On and Citizens United should have the right to spend money to advocate that political cause? Glad to know we agree on something, even if you thought we did not.
Actually I do agree with you on that - to a point. These are openly political organizations, usually based on grassroots membership (at least in theory, similar to the NRA and other groups who use "membership" as both political clout and a fundraising tool), and most important they are formed under and scrutinized under specific regulations for that purpose.
Do I think their money is speech either? No. Would I want them participating in the political process minus those specific regulations? No. Do I think they're a good idea as opposed to a legal one? Not entirely.
OK, but we have to live with the system we have. It could be better, but it will not happen without a lot of work and hassle. I would love to go back to the original Constitutional Convention and have them clarify a few things based on my 200+ years of perspective, but what we have works because they were smart enough to realize that they had no idea what was coming.
As I said, in the old days liberals wanted more free speech. Whatever happened to thsoe people??
corporations aren't people.
and most of the conservatives i know agree with that...
except for the most rightwingnutty of wingnuts.
They're wingnuts who also don't know anything about their First Amendment OR corporate law.
Corporations as fictitious entities already had free speech rights for the purposes of commerce, that being the sole purpose for their existence and "association", if one really must use that term.
Why the fringe types fail to grasp that a legal fiction constructed for a single purpose should have rights limited to that purpose is beyond me.
SUMMARY OF CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
SUMMARY
- In a 5-4 decision, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions have the same political speech rights as individuals under the First Amendment.
- Additionally, in an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that the disclaimer and disclosure requirements associated with electioneering communications are constitutional.
fwiw - Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation
Facial Challenge to § 441b. In considering the facial challenge, the Court applied strict scrutiny; thus requiring the government to demonstrate that the statute served a compelling interest and was narrowly tailored to meet that interest. A facial challenge requires the Court to look at the law and determine if it is unconstitutional as written.
In noting the need for strict scrutiny, the Court stated that a ban on independent expenditures is a ban on speech. In its analysis, the Court found that prior to Austin, the First Amendment applied to corporations (First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765) and the protection was extended to the context of free speech (NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S 415).
In Austin, the Court held that antidistortion was a compelling government interest that justified a ban on independent election expenditures by corporations and unions. It ruled that large aggregations of wealth, accumulated with the help of the corporate form, may have corrosive or distorting effects, thus justifying a ban on corporate independent expenditures. The Citizens United Court reasoned that differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment and there is no support for the view that the Amendment's original meaning would permit suppressing media corporations' free speech. Austin, it found, interferes with the open marketplace of ideas protected by the First Amendment. As a result of this reasoning, the Court was not persuaded by the government's arguments on (1) anticorruption and (2) shareholder protection.
Much more at link.
It's a good argument. If the government can suppress Citizens United, it can suppress the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (PBS and NPR) or ABC, FOX, CNN, CBS or NBC or anyone anywhere anytime etc etc etc.
Absolutely not. News organizations have and have always had freedom of the press, which is an expansion of speech to press organizations in service of the public.
Whether that "service of the public" part still holds true is debatable.
How have Limbaugh and Beck managed to convince you that repealing Citizens United will negatively affect your freedom of speech?4 out of 5 Americans disagree with this decision.
If four out of five Americans jump off a cliff... fuck 'em, shorter lines at Starbucks and Barns and Noble. I'd rather have greater than fewer free speech rights.
Here's a simple question for you: Do you actually believe your freedom of speech exists in proportion to your net worth -- or how much money you can afford to give to lawmakers?[...]
"In noting the need for strict scrutiny, the Court stated that a ban on independent expenditures is a ban on speech. In its analysis, the Court found that prior to Austin, the First Amendment applied to corporations (First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765) and the protection was extended to the context of free speech (NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S 415)."
SUMMARY OF CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
fwiw - Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation
Much more at link.
It's a good argument. If the government can suppress Citizens United, it can suppress the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (PBS and NPR) or ABC, FOX, CNN, CBS or NBC or anyone anywhere anytime etc etc etc.
Absolutely not. News organizations have and have always had freedom of the press, which is an expansion of speech to press organizations in service of the public.
Whether that "service of the public" part still holds true is debatable.
Do "news organizations" have special rights under the 1A that the rest of us don't have?
You show your ignorance, "counselor."
Translation: I have no refutation to offer because you are right.Absolutely not. News organizations have and have always had freedom of the press, which is an expansion of speech to press organizations in service of the public.
Whether that "service of the public" part still holds true is debatable.
Do "news organizations" have special rights under the 1A that the rest of us don't have?
You show your ignorance, "counselor."
Fuck off, troll. If you don't know who the "press" is, you have even bigger problems than your disgusting personality suggests.
Don't you have somebody else to stalk and call a hooker today? I'm in no mood to play nice.
Here's a simple question for you: Do you actually believe your freedom of speech exists in proportion to your net worth -- or how much money you can afford to give to lawmakers?[...]
"In noting the need for strict scrutiny, the Court stated that a ban on independent expenditures is a ban on speech. In its analysis, the Court found that prior to Austin, the First Amendment applied to corporations (First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765) and the protection was extended to the context of free speech (NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S 415)."
Because the Citizens United ruling has ordained precisely that. It says that money is speech, so how much speech can you afford compared to the Koch Brothers?
Translation: I have no refutation to offer because you are right.Do "news organizations" have special rights under the 1A that the rest of us don't have?
You show your ignorance, "counselor."
Fuck off, troll. If you don't know who the "press" is, you have even bigger problems than your disgusting personality suggests.
Don't you have somebody else to stalk and call a hooker today? I'm in no mood to play nice.
Again:
What "commerce" was Citizens United engaged in?
What rights do "news organizations" have that the rest of us don't have?
I don't know who "the press" is. Tell me, is Matt Drudge the press? Does he have rights I do not have? What about Rush Limbaugh? What about Keith Olberdouchebag? How about posters here on USMB? Is this a "news org" that has protections the rest of us don't?
Your knowledge base is very shallow, the contradictions come fast and furious.
Is there anyone here who thinks it is good for the US democracy to have this in place?
I'd like her answer. Just to confirm.Thats different, the liberals love socialism and moveon.org is a socialist organization so they love it. Idiots.Then you similarly oppose 527s like MoveOn.org, correct?The people in them already have rights.
The US was not designed to give corporations control over the government was it?
Here's a simple question for you: Do you actually believe your freedom of speech exists in proportion to your net worth -- or how much money you can afford to give to lawmakers?[...]
"In noting the need for strict scrutiny, the Court stated that a ban on independent expenditures is a ban on speech. In its analysis, the Court found that prior to Austin, the First Amendment applied to corporations (First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765) and the protection was extended to the context of free speech (NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S 415)."
Because the Citizens United ruling has ordained precisely that. It says that money is speech, so how much speech can you afford compared to the Koch Brothers?
Here's a simple question for you: Do you actually believe your freedom of speech exists in proportion to your net worth -- or how much money you can afford to give to lawmakers?[...]
"In noting the need for strict scrutiny, the Court stated that a ban on independent expenditures is a ban on speech. In its analysis, the Court found that prior to Austin, the First Amendment applied to corporations (First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765) and the protection was extended to the context of free speech (NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S 415)."
Because the Citizens United ruling has ordained precisely that. It says that money is speech, so how much speech can you afford compared to the Koch Brothers?
That is a misunderstanding of the Citizens United ruling which I went to some length to explain via the link above. I'm sorry to tell you but President Obama was as wrong about the SC ruling in his SOTU speech last year as you are now.
If "money is speech" were the ruling in Citizens United then there would have been no need to film a documentary, or buy ads, or print pamphlets (you know... "speak") and direct donations to the bastards would be allowed outright. (that is still, rightly, not legal) also note that Citizens United lost (rightly) 8-1 in there argument for non-disclosure.
In fact, it would be more accurate to say that your argument is "documentary films are not speech" than to claim my argument is "money is speech" though obviously both have their shortcomings via simplification.
To answer your question, "Do you actually believe your freedom of speech exists in proportion to your net worth...", I reject the premise on the basis that I reject the false narrative that "money = speech". However, I do understand that those with gobs of dough can own newspapers I can't afford and film documentaries and otherwise get their message out in ways I can't. So what? That is not a problem that needs government regulation.
Just ask Obama artist David Farley (sp?) Or filmmaker Micheal Moore, or anyone with a blog or a message board. Rush Limbaugh has a radio show and I don't but we still both have the same right to free speech. (he's just better than me at exercising that right)
