New York joins California and Montana, Corporations are not people!

[whitehall]

What about the rule of law? Left wing pundits like Chris Matthews are abslolutely convinced that the Supreme Court decision that found a fake right to privacy that didn't exist in the Constitution and legalized Abortion indicates the Constitutional law of the land. Meanwhile the eually important Supreme Court decision that corporations have the same rights to engage in the political process is under scrutany by the left. The point is whether libs have the right to pick any Supreme Court decision as binding or otherwise?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Yay!

NY City Council Passes*Resolution Declaring that Corporations Are Not People |

It's not enforceable, so I frankly don't see the point.

 

[Intense]

What about the rule of law? Left wing pundits like Chris Matthews are abslolutely convinced that the Supreme Court decision that found a fake right to privacy that didn't exist in the Constitution and legalized Abortion indicates the Constitutional law of the land. Meanwhile the eually important Supreme Court decision that corporations have the same rights to engage in the political process is under scrutany by the left. The point is whether libs have the right to pick any Supreme Court decision as binding or otherwise?

I think they prefer when we are hand-cuffed, so they can impose Their will on Us. It is a One Way Street though. Their feelings exempt them from what they impose on us.

 

[Intense]

Yay!

NY City Council Passes*Resolution Declaring that Corporations Are Not People |

It's not enforceable, so I frankly don't see the point.

There is a ton of shit NY gets away with. It is the norm here.

 

[Grandma]

What about the rule of law? Left wing pundits like Chris Matthews are abslolutely convinced that the Supreme Court decision that found a fake right to privacy that didn't exist in the Constitution and legalized Abortion indicates the Constitutional law of the land. Meanwhile the eually important Supreme Court decision that corporations have the same rights to engage in the political process is under scrutany by the left. The point is whether libs have the right to pick any Supreme Court decision as binding or otherwise?

The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on specific issues and arguments brought before it. Corporate personhood was not part of the issue being considered, it was tacked on by the Court, in a pork-barrel sort of way. That's where the problem lies.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Citizens United ruling was predicated on a fundamental tenet of Constitutional case law: that civil rights may not be restricted out of fear of possible misuse. It is possible one might indeed yell Fire! in a crowded theater, that possibility does not, however, justify the government attempting to prevent that from occurring by not allowing one to enter the theater at all.

First Amendment standards…”must give the benefit of any doubt to protecting rather than stifling speech.” WRTL , 551 U. S., at 469 (opinion of Roberts , C. J.) (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan , 376 U. S. 254, 269–270 (1964) ).

The issue before the Court did not concern whether or not corporations were ‘people,’ rather, it addressed the issue of the corporate/union structure as a venue and medium for free speech.

The message in question was a rightist political hit-piece called Hillary: The Movie. Riddled with lies, half-truths, and irrelevant information, the film attempted to present then Senator and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton as ‘unfit for office.’

The Court ruled that the film was protected speech, that it was the product of a private, non-profit corporation whose members had a fundamental right to engage in this speech in this particular venue:

[P]olitical speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence. Laws that burden political speech are “subject to strict scrutiny,” which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464 (opinion of Roberts , C. J.). While it might be maintained that political speech simply cannot be banned or restricted as a categorical matter, see Simon & Schuster , 502 U. S., at 124 ( Kennedy , J., concurring in judgment), the quoted language from WRTL provides a sufficient framework for protecting the relevant First Amendment interests in this case. We shall employ it here.

Whatever the mechanics of the issue involved, whatever the source of the political speech, who does the speaking or how it is funded, it is ultimately up the individual voter to research the issues and candidates to make an informed opinion; it is not the role of government to ‘protect’ voters from unscrupulous political advocacy entities such as Citizens United, however well-intentioned.



For citations above see: CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yay!

NY City Council Passes*Resolution Declaring that Corporations Are Not People |

So?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I guess Corporations are not people in the same exact way that Unions are Not people, or the City Council is Not people either. Guess what I am a Person. You are obstructing my Right to Hear, to Read, to be Informed on Important Issues. Funny, that is not new to you. You know, serving Injustice, Censorship, Obstruction, typical reasoning of Totalitarian Control Freaks. You know, Utter Hypocritical Bullshit.

I want all private money out of politics. I want the popular vote to decide elections. I want voting to be mandatory and easy. I want a 3 month elections cycle so the people we elect work on policy and not on getting votes.

You?

Do you also want to be able to fly without a plane?

Why are you worried about people spending money on elections? Can you document the negative impacts of allowing people to have a say in their government?

Wait a minute, I thought you said you want private money out of politics, yet you want the popular vote to decide elections. How can anyone be popular without spending private money?

You want people to go to jail for not voting? Why?

Three month election cycle? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe you guys should, you know, actually read the decision?

The decision doesnt make corporations people. Corporations have been "people" since the beginning. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to sue corporations. You really want Corporations to not be sued? Im sure they would love that one!

No. The decision points out that the Court has a long standing policy of supporting free speech both as an individual and as a group of individuals. A corporation is a group of individuals united for an economic purpose. You can't limit a group of people's speech simply because they incomporate. And you sure as hell can't prohibit political speech 60 or 90 days prior to an election as McCain-Fiengold did.

Do you guys seriously think that the government should have the power to prohibit challengers from placing ads against incumbant politicians 60 to 90 days before an election?

I have been trying facts on them for months, all they see is the fact that business gets to compete against the unions, and that makes them so crazy facts are ignored.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I want all private money out of politics. I want the popular vote to decide elections. I want voting to be mandatory and easy. I want a 3 month elections cycle so the people we elect work on policy and not on getting votes.

You?

You Want? So you don't donate? That is where you should start. Idiot.

Course I donate. If there were a law against donating..I wouldn't donate. Moron.

Two can play the name calling came. Oh..and get yer shovel ready..you big two fist individualist. Looks like snow!

You want a law to make what you do illegal? Should we apply it retroactively so we can throw everyone who has ever donated to a politcal campaign, put private money in an =election, will go to prison?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I totally understand WHY the SCOTUS came down on the Citizens United case like they did.

However, if we're going to clean up government, we have GOT to change the rules for campaigns.

Candidly, writing rules to prevent big capital from dominating the political narrative isn't going to be easy.

And the reason it is going to be so hard is this...

Who decides when a public service advertisment steps over the line and becomes a sotto voce advertisment for a particular pol?

Where does one draw the line between giving information and propagandizing for a particular political POV?

See the problem, and why the SCOTUS ruled as it did?

They truly almost had no choice if they weren't going to step on the 1st Amendment.

It would be really easy, as long as they do not tell them what, and when, they can say certain things. What made McCain-Feingold unconstitutional were the restrictions on speech, not the restrictions on donations.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yay!

NY City Council Passes*Resolution Declaring that Corporations Are Not People |

I used to be on the other side of this issue but I now agree with our Liberal friends; Corporations are not People, and shouldn't be.

You, and your lefty friends, are wrong. Corporations are not people in any sense of the word, they are, however, legal persons so that they can be held liable for their actions, and taxed. If you actually eliminate their personhood you will also eliminate the things that every supports about said personhood.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The point, which I obviously need to explain to you, is that your money is private.

Not always.

Federal Laws On Bribery - Bribery

There's an example of use of your "private" money that is quite illegal. Campaign contributions have the same effect, when combined with lobbying.

For the money=speech crowd, look at it this way. You have a right to say whatever you wish, but there are limits when that right tramples on other rights. For example:

You cannot blare forth your comments under powerful amplification late at night and keep your neighbors' kids awake.

You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater (unless there actually is a fire).

You cannot sue a publisher for rejecting your book on First Amendment grounds.

In at least two of the above, we see that a right to free speech does not imply a right to amplify that speech in any fashion desired regardless of the consequences. And that's really what we're talking about here: not the right of people to express their political opinions, but their right to amplify their speech by spending money on communications media when that crosses the basic right of all citizens to hold the government accountable through their votes.

And that's what's wrong with the Citizens United decision.

If any of what you said was actually applicable to anything outside your imagination you might have a point.

 

[Liability]

Yay!

NY City Council Passes*Resolution Declaring that Corporations Are Not People |

The NY City Council has no authority to undo the laws of the STATE of NY.

Your dopey OP offers praise for the sheer stupidity on the part of the NYC Council Members who voted for such tripe.

They are a bunch of vapid mofos.

 

[waltky]

Politicians still reacting to Citizens United ruling...

US Court Ruling on Corporate Campaign Spending Draws Concern
January 06, 2012 - Two years ago this month [January 21], the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that government may not limit spending by corporations on political campaigns.

The majority in the narrow 5-4 decision, known as "Citizens United," said such limits would violate corporations' right to free speech - essentially treating corporate speech the same as that of individual human beings. There is growing concern that well-funded corporations may drown out the individual. Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has the distinction of both supporting the "Citizens United" decision and being a victim of it.

Female Voice: “Ever notice how some people make a lot of mistakes?” Newt Gingrich: “It was probably a mistake.” This so-called "attack ad" was part of a multi-million-dollar negative campaign against Gingrich before the recent Iowa caucuses. It was funded by anonymous corporate donors who favor Mitt Romney for president. The corporate attack ads are widely credited with helping pull Gingrich down from front-runner to fourth in the recent Iowa Caucuses.

The New York City Council is the latest American city to adopt a resolution calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution - to declare that corporations are not entitled to the same rights as people, and that money is not a constitutionally-protected form of speech. Other cities to do so include Los Angeles, California; Albany, New York; Boulder, Colorado and South Miami, Florida. Jonah Minkoff-Zern represents Public Citizen, a non-profit organization that favors public campaign financing instead of allowing outside contributions. “Our vote doesn’t matter the same way that someone who has so many resources to devote to a campaign, whether it’s a wealthy individual or a mega-corporation,” said Minkoff-Zern.

Republican Councilman Eric Ulrich, a Romney supporter, voted against the New York resolution. “Because it’s just as important, even if you don’t agree with it, as the influence labor organizations and other groups may have. You have to create an equal playing field and zeroing out one group simply because we don’t agree with them just to help another - that’s not fair, that’s not American,” said Ulrich. Ulrich mentioned newspapers and religious groups as collective organizations that also can influence elections. The Supreme Court decision was based on a case filed against a group called Citizens United, which used corporate funds to produce a film attacking 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Source

 

[hortysir]

Yay!

NY City Council Passes*Resolution Declaring that Corporations Are Not People |

So the SCOTUS makes a ruling and a more local government opposes it and that's "Kewl"?

But when Congress passes an asinine mandate and states ban together to challenge it, that's wrong somehow.

Got it.