Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

[noose4]

Let's All meet up at the Union Halls, We will burn every book in every library and store that is published by a Corporate Publisher!!!!

I just love the smell of Burning Books in the Morning!!!

Now that's My kind of America, Union Bought and Paid For! .... What's this... Our pamphlet's have to be burned too!!! Quick, We need another Exemption!!!! Privilege Pay's huh.....

Union members tend to be the opposite of the book burning types.

Do you really believe that a union can compete with the money a corporation can contribute to an election?

It amazes me how conservatives always favor the billionaires over working people.

 

[Borat]

political parties are similar corporations, why not ban them from political speech?

So you like our 2-party system ?

 

[Intense]

Let's All meet up at the Union Halls, We will burn every book in every library and store that is published by a Corporate Publisher!!!!

I just love the smell of Burning Books in the Morning!!!

Now that's My kind of America, Union Bought and Paid For! .... What's this... Our pamphlet's have to be burned too!!! Quick, We need another Exemption!!!! Privilege Pay's huh.....

Union members tend to be the opposite of the book burning types.

Do you really believe that a union can compete with the money a corporation can contribute to an election?

It amazes me how conservatives always favor the billionaires over working people.

The Court decision was very much related to the issue of book banning. That was acknowledged and confirmed in the Court Record. The Law Violated Guaranteed Free Speech Rights. Check Your Premise.

 

[noose4]

Let's All meet up at the Union Halls, We will burn every book in every library and store that is published by a Corporate Publisher!!!!

I just love the smell of Burning Books in the Morning!!!

Now that's My kind of America, Union Bought and Paid For! .... What's this... Our pamphlet's have to be burned too!!! Quick, We need another Exemption!!!! Privilege Pay's huh.....

Union members tend to be the opposite of the book burning types.

Do you really believe that a union can compete with the money a corporation can contribute to an election?

It amazes me how conservatives always favor the billionaires over working people.

The Court decision was very much related to the issue of book banning. That was acknowledged and confirmed in the Court Record. The Law Violated Guaranteed Free Speech Rights. Check Your Premise.

streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch

 

[Borat]

What a surprise, liberals screaming bloody murder because more people have the right to say what they want during an election.

What "People"? That's the point here. We're not talking about "People". We're talking about pieces of paper having rights.

A collection of people, whether it is a union, an activist rights group, a privately owned company, or a large corporation, have a right to voice their opinion at their own expense.

voice their opinion yes. but not to the point where it silences other people's opinions. and when this group of people already owns the government and the media it is that point.

a corporation is also different from a group of people. a group of people is the sum of those people. a corporation is only a sum of their SHARES.

 

[Zoom-boing]

This whole thing . . . I find confusing. This ruling says that a corporation is made up of individuals and thus, are protected by free speech. But a corporation is more than just a collection of individuals, it's also a business so . . . why do 'individual' rights apply to it? Individuals vote but corporations don't.

 

[theHawk]

But that's just it - the people who own or are employed by a corporation or union are NOT who received rights under this ruling. They already had them, individually.

The piece of paper that makes up the corporation or union received rights yesterday. Period. They are Two. Different. Things.

Just read the opinion for yourself, maybe it'll come to you.

People make up unions and corporations. Pieces of paper don't make decisions and spend money. Explain how as piece of paper is going to make and air an ad? Its not, the board members of the organization do all that.

YES, they do. But it's not their own rights they are exercising. They're speaking on behalf of the piece of paper called the corporate charter, and in its name. Just like the operator is making decisions on behalf of and giving orders to the robot.

It's the exact same thing, the fact that a robot can be touched and the legal construct cannot be is immaterial.

I have nothing in particular against robots either. But it's absurd to say they should have a protected right to political speech.

You're absolutely right, it is absurd to say robots should have a protected right to political speech. Glad we can agree on that. I never said they did.

You act as if we cannot use mechanisms to practice constitutionally protected rights. Its like saying I have the right to vote, but the government can prevent my vehicle from getting to the voting poll because "it doesn't have rights". Or a protester has the right to protest but he can't use a sign because the stick and paper don't have rights. I'm not saying a sign or a car or a "piece of paper" has rights, I am saying groups and individuals behind them do.

What does it matter if a group of people choose to speak out in the name of their corporation? Its ok for AARP to air political commercials like they did during the last election, but not Boeing?

 

[goldcatt]

People make up unions and corporations. Pieces of paper don't make decisions and spend money. Explain how as piece of paper is going to make and air an ad? Its not, the board members of the organization do all that.

YES, they do. But it's not their own rights they are exercising. They're speaking on behalf of the piece of paper called the corporate charter, and in its name. Just like the operator is making decisions on behalf of and giving orders to the robot.

It's the exact same thing, the fact that a robot can be touched and the legal construct cannot be is immaterial.

I have nothing in particular against robots either. But it's absurd to say they should have a protected right to political speech.

You're absolutely right, it is absurd to say robots should have a protected right to political speech. Glad we can agree on that. I never said they did.

You act as if we cannot use mechanisms to practice constitutionally protected rights. Its like saying I have the right to vote, but the government can prevent my vehicle from getting to the voting poll because "it doesn't have rights". Or a protester has the right to protest but he can't use a sign because the stick and paper don't have rights. I'm not saying a sign or a car or a "piece of paper" has rights, I am saying groups and individuals behind them do.

What does it matter if a group of people choose to speak out in the name of their corporation? Its ok for AARP to air political commercials like they did during the last election, but not Boeing?

Let me back up here.

The majority opinion speaks about how corporations are made up of individuals who enjoy political speech protections. It makes no distinction while speaking of this between the individual and the corporation. What it does is go off into a tangent about censorship due to the speaker's wealth.

But I'll lead you through this here. What is the sole purpose of forming a corporation? Hint: It's not actually to make money, not in a legal sense. Any Bubba can open a business in his living room without incorporating and do that.

The purpose of incorporating is to place a legal veil between the actions of the corporation and personal liability for its owners. In other words, actions performed by the corporation are separate and distinct from those of its owners with a very few exceptions. It is a separate entity for for all legal purposes (other than intentional criminal activity) - which is a benefit for its owners who would otherwise be personally liable, pay individual income taxes, and the like. With me so far?

 

[goldcatt]

The individuals who form corporations do so to operate under a separate entity for personal legal and financial benefit. However, they have to keep their personal and corporate activities separate or the shield or "veil" they set up when they set up the corporation can be "pierced" and they lose the benefit of incorporating in the first place. One example of this is any sort of mingling of corporate and individual funds, or use of some kinds of company property for personal gain without authorization. The "veil" of separateness is lifted and they can be personally responsible for any or all of the company's actions. This is incredibly simple, basic corporate law. See where this is going?

 

[Borat]

Is the NY Times a "Person"? NO!!

Then how can it have a First Amendment right?

NYT doesn't run campaign ads on TV ...

 

[goldcatt]

The majority opinion is saying, in essence, that even though corporations exist for the sole purpose of being a separate entity from the individuals who own and run them in this case the individual and corporation should be merged and the rights of the individuals be expanded to the separate entity they created. Even though in every other case, the individuals are punished for mingling the two. Do you not see a problem with this logic?

 

[Borat]

How so? The court ruling expressely held in place the ban on contributions by foreigners.

BUT foreign individuals can and are owners of domestic corporations. And since a corporation is a separate entity from its owners...can you see where this is going? Anyone around the world who can fill out a paper, pay a fee and open a PO Box in Delaware now has the Constitutionally protected ability to (indirectly of course) participate in and affect our political process.

Thats true, if we don't want companies with a majority (or any) foreign owners running ads then we'll have to pass some new laws saying so.

Until then, voters should educate themselves on the companies that do run political ads.

Voters can't even educate themselves on the candidates. Now you want them to be educated on every single corporation ? And who will educate them - if not the corporation itself ?

 

[Avatar4321]

Corporations are NOT people

They are for tax purposes. and purposes of standing in court.

However, it's irrelevant unless you are going to argue that a group of people united for a common purpose have no right to speak. Are you saying that groups of people cant speak out on public policy issues and candidates they approve and disapprove?

 

[Borat]

The majority opinion is saying, in essence, that even though corporations exist for the sole purpose of being a separate entity from the individuals who own and run them in this case the individual and corporation should be merged and the rights of the individuals be expanded to the separate entity they created.

good point !

people who work for or own shares of corporations can already contribute to political campaigns on their own.

if the corporation is the sum of the people than either these people should lose their individual rights to vote or these people should ALL do time behind bars when a corporation loses in court.

since that is not the case, and in fact corporation is a separate entity form the people who work for and/or own it - then it has NO human rights aside from the ones it needs to conduct business for which it was created.

 

[Intense]

Union members tend to be the opposite of the book burning types.

Do you really believe that a union can compete with the money a corporation can contribute to an election?

It amazes me how conservatives always favor the billionaires over working people.

The Court decision was very much related to the issue of book banning. That was acknowledged and confirmed in the Court Record. The Law Violated Guaranteed Free Speech Rights. Check Your Premise.

streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch

STRRRRRRRIIIIIIIKKKKKKEEE ThreeeEEEE Next Bater!!!!!

Too bad you didn't listen to Savage last night. Great interview!!!!

You need to research Noose. It is a slam dunk.

 

[Borat]

However, it's irrelevant unless you are going to argue that a group of people united for a common purpose have no right to speak. Are you saying that groups of people cant speak out on public policy issues and candidates they approve and disapprove?

and their common purpose is to make money. they have no other purpose in forming that group - nobody denies that - that is the very definition of corporation.

in that case the only thing a corporation should be allowed to say is " I WANT MORE MONEY ! "

 

[Annie]

Funny, the ACLU saw the Bill of Rights involved, in particular, free speech:

http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/scotus/citizensunited_v_fec_acluamicus.pdf

...AMICUS CURIAEBRIEF OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT
ON SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTION...

2

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The broad prohibition on “electioneering com-
munications” set forth in § 203 of the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), 2 U.S.C. §
441b(b)(2), violates the First Amendment, and the
limiting construction adopted by this Court in WRTL
is insufficient to save it. Accordingly, the Court
should strike down § 203 as facially unconstitutional
and overrule that portion of McConnell that holds
otherwise.

This brief addresses only that question. It does
not address the additional question raised by this
Court’s reargument order: namely, whether Austin v.
Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652
(1990), should be overruled. However, if Austin is
overruled and the ban on express advocacy by
corporations and unions is struck down, then the ban
on “electioneering communications” in § 203 would
necessarily fall as a consequence.

Even if Austin is not overruled, § 203 is unconsti-
tutional precisely because it extends beyond the
express advocacy at issue in Austin. The history of
the McConnell litigation, as well as campaign finance
litigation before and after McConnell, demonstrates
that there is no precise or predictable way to
determine whether or not political speech is the
“functional equivalent” of express advocacy.

The decision in WRTL correctly recognized that
the BCRA’s prophylactic ban on “electioneering
communications” threatened speech that lies at the
heart of the First Amendment, including genuine
issue ads by nonpartisan organizations like the
ACLU. But the reformulated ban crafted by this
Court in WRTL continues to threaten core First
Amendment speech. Its reliance on the hypothetical
response of a reasonable listener still leaves speakers
guessing about what speech is lawful and what
speech is not. That uncertainty invites arbitrary and
discriminatory enforcement. It will also lead many
speakers to self-censor rather than risk sanctions or
undertake the expense of suing the FEC prior to
speaking, especially since most suits will not be
resolved until long after the speech is timely and
relevant.

In short, § 203 was a poorly conceived effort to
restrict political speech and should be struck down.

 

[Intense]

However, it's irrelevant unless you are going to argue that a group of people united for a common purpose have no right to speak. Are you saying that groups of people cant speak out on public policy issues and candidates they approve and disapprove?

and their common purpose is to make money. they have no other purpose in forming that group - nobody denies that - that is the very definition of corporation.

in that case the only thing a corporation should be allowed to say is " I WANT MORE MONEY ! "

According to Who?

 

[goldcatt]

The majority opinion is saying, in essence, that even though corporations exist for the sole purpose of being a separate entity from the individuals who own and run them in this case the individual and corporation should be merged and the rights of the individuals be expanded to the separate entity they created.

good point !

people who work for or own shares of corporations can already contribute to political campaigns on their own.

if the corporation is the sum of the people than either these people should lose their individual rights to vote or these people should ALL do time behind bars when a corporation loses in court.

since that is not the case, and in fact corporation is a separate entity form the people who work for and/or own it - then it has NO human rights aside from the ones it needs to conduct business for which it was created.

Add in that the owners voluntarily seek out exactly that separate nature for their own personal benefit, and you see how artificial it really is.

I'm not anti-corporation. Incorporation serves an important purpose, and there are entire industries that would not be in existence without it. But it is an artificial entity separate from the individuals involved in it and always has been.

 

[Intense]

The majority opinion is saying, in essence, that even though corporations exist for the sole purpose of being a separate entity from the individuals who own and run them in this case the individual and corporation should be merged and the rights of the individuals be expanded to the separate entity they created.

good point !

people who work for or own shares of corporations can already contribute to political campaigns on their own.

if the corporation is the sum of the people than either these people should lose their individual rights to vote or these people should ALL do time behind bars when a corporation loses in court.

since that is not the case, and in fact corporation is a separate entity form the people who work for and/or own it - then it has NO human rights aside from the ones it needs to conduct business for which it was created.

Add in that the owners voluntarily seek out exactly that separate nature for their own personal benefit, and you see how artificial it really is.

I'm not anti-corporation. Incorporation serves an important purpose, and there are entire industries that would not be in existence without it. But it is an artificial entity separate from the individuals involved in it and always has been.

The matter has nothing to do with free speech.