What does this primary cycle say about Citizens United?

[ABikerSailor]

If corporations are citizens, then that means that the corporation has a vote, as well as do the board members of said corporation have a vote.

Why should someone who is the member of a corporate board have two votes (his, and the corporation) while the rest of us only get one?

 

[mikegriffith1]

It's just really funny to see liberals whine about Citizens United because they never complained about "corporate money" when, before Citizens United, only news media corporations could form and fund super PACs. Yes, before Citizens United, news media corporations were exempt from the federal campaign finance restrictions that Citizens United justifiably ruled to be unconstitutional. But did you ever hear liberals whine about that? Why? Because those corporations--surprise--backed Democrats.

Anyway, political donations are a form of speech, and thus the government has no business telling anyone how much they can or cannot donate to a political cause.

And, by the way, why don't liberals ever complain about labor unions using member dues for political donations? Humm? It seems their professed concern about the "undue influence of big money" only applies when that money is used to support Republicans.

 

[Tehon]

Denying corporations a right to interfere in our political process does not deny any citizen their right to free speech. Try again.

Wrong.
Corporations are people, my friend.

Not really, they are made up of people, people who have a say in our political process just the same as me. I see no reason to give them added influence in the political process based on an economic association.

Well too bad for you the Supreme Court disagreed. They held that citizens do not lose rights simply by banding together i a corporation.
So la di da.

No, the supreme court said that certain citizens have additional rights based on an association. They said that certain associations are in fact people, with constitutional rights, independent of the individuals that comprise the association. It's absurd.

Wrong.
They held individuals do not give up their 1A rights simply because they associate via corporation. Go read the decision so you dont sound like a dumbass.

What you are claiming is not exactly accurate either. No one was asked to give up their individual right to free speech. Citizens United petitioned the court to overturn laws that barred certain associations from buying media spots in the month before an election. An individual's rights were never in question, only those of the association. The ruling majority said that the 1a protected speech irrespective of the speaker and that the government had no right to limit it during election cycles. The effect of the decision is that an individual can have more say in our election process based on their association and or access to money.

Justice Scalia's concurring opinion:
But to return to, and summarize, my principal point, which is the conformity of today’s opinion with the original meaning of the First Amendment . The Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals—and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is “speech” covered by the First Amendment . No one says otherwise. A documentary film critical of a potential Presidential candidate is core political speech, and its nature as such does not change simply because it was funded by a corporation. Nor does the character of that funding produce any reduction whatever in the “inherent worth of the speech” and “its capacity for informing the public,” First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti , 435 U. S. 765, 777 (1978) . Indeed, to exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy. We should celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this speech to the public debate.

The dissenting opinion:
In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.

The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907, ch. 420, 864. We have unanimously concluded that this “reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process,” FEC v. National Right to Work Comm. , 459 U. S. 197, 494 U. S. 652 (1990) . Relying largely on individual dissenting opinions, the majority blazes through our precedents, overruling or disavowing a body of case law including FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life , Inc., 551 U. S. 449 (2007) (WRTL) , McConnell v. FEC , 540 U. S. 93 (2003) , FEC v. Beaumont , 539 U. S. 146 (2003) ,FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life , Inc., 479 U. S. 238 (1986) (MCFL) , NRWC , 459 U. S. 197 , and California Medical Assn. v. FEC , 453 U. S. 182 (1981) .