And there should be names of other countries written on some founders. Other countries, through the corporations they own, can now produce and air all those awful, but effective, negative campaign ads to defeat candidates not in their pocket.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
petergrt, I know you to be a conservative, but not all conservatives are favoring the Citizens United decision. Are you posting the text of the First Amendment here to signal agreement with or outrage at the Court’s logic?
I agree with the court - freedom of speech means unsuppressed speech - for all.
Corporations, for better or worse, are legal entities representing real human person(s).
The law, as it stood, exempted ‘news’ corporations from the suppression, for as we know, every newsman is in fact a corporation … .that exception is unconstitutional …
First: “News corporations”, insofar as they operate as “the press”, enjoy special protection under the First Amendment, in which they are actually named. Of course an exception for the press is constitutional! It’s baked right in.
Second (and this is a biggie): If you can find a way for so-called “originalists” like Justices Thomas and Scalia to reconcile the idea of corporate personhood with the Framers’ intent, then I’d like to hear it.
Not surprisingly, of the two, only Scalia’s concurring opinion addressed the matter in response to Justice Stevens’s dissent (though Thomas did join it, in part). But Scalia’s argument is largely a mixture of obfuscations of Stevens’s dissenting views and outright logical fallacies, such as the following:
“Surely the dissent does not believe that speech by the Republican Party or the Democratic Party can be censored because it is not the speech of ‘an individual American.’ It is the speech of many individual Americans, who have associated in a common cause, giving the leader-ship of the party the right to speak on their behalf. The association of individuals in a business corporation is no different.”
Here, Scalia stretches valiantly to convince us that a political party, whose leadership is charged by its constituent members with the specific task of advancing a political agenda, is “no different” from a business entity, whose leaders are charged by its shareholders with the specific task of earning a profit in business!
What a sham!
That last is, after all, conservative economist Milton Friedman’s dictum!
As the owner of mutual funds and a 401(k), I am a shareholder in numerous corporations. I have no more empowered the executives of said corporations to speak on my behalf regarding political matters than I have on religious, philosophical, or medical matters! Their job (again, cf. Friedman) is to provide me with greater financial returns!
So, ‘press’ in your understanding means ‘corporations involved with the dissemination of press’ or some such?
Nonsense!
Your other arguments, regardless of how you characterize them, are also malarkey.
Scalia is right.
You seem to want to distinguish between corporations, partnerships or whatever type of entity, based upon their bylaws … by what measure? What standard?
No, as I said before free speech means unimpeded speech, political or whatever … .
No, petergrt, I meant exactly what I said. You apparently didn’t get it, so I’ll repeat the relevant parts (with emphasis for those having a hard time penetrating the straight-forward logic).
“News corporations”, insofar as they operate as “the press”, enjoy special protection under the First Amendment.
Read your opening question, and then read my last sentence. There’s your answer.
And I’ve made the measure by which an organization might be granted unfettered political speech quite clear in my above argument. It has nothing to do with whether a group is a corporation or partnership. Each and every member within said organization enjoys the right to speak out. Should a number of people wish to come together to speak out jointly, they may form such a group to that end.
But I am a shareholder in Company X for one reason and one reason only. They are to give me a financial return on my investment. I have not authorized Company X to put out an attack ad against Senator Y on my behalf.
Corporations are not organizations of people wishing to aggregate their political voices. They are people trying to aggregate and maximize their wealth. Period. This indisputably puts the lie to Scalia’s concurrence.
pbarnrob over 14 years ago
Blatant, unlike the past 150 years…
believecommonsense over 14 years ago
And there should be names of other countries written on some founders. Other countries, through the corporations they own, can now produce and air all those awful, but effective, negative campaign ads to defeat candidates not in their pocket.
Dtroutma over 14 years ago
How many were slave holders? THEIR “philosophies” rose above their personal behaviors.
tpenna over 14 years ago
I should also point out, ANandy, that the press is specifically named and protected in the First Amendment (unlike other corporate “people”).
petergrt over 14 years ago
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
tpenna over 14 years ago
petergrt, I know you to be a conservative, but not all conservatives are favoring the Citizens United decision. Are you posting the text of the First Amendment here to signal agreement with or outrage at the Court’s logic?
petergrt over 14 years ago
I agree with the court - freedom of speech means unsuppressed speech - for all.
Corporations, for better or worse, are legal entities representing real human person(s).
The law, as it stood, exempted ‘news’ corporations from the suppression, for as we know, every newsman is in fact a corporation … .that exception is unconstitutional …
tpenna over 14 years ago
Thanks for clearing your opinion up, petergrt.
Now, a couple of corrections:
First: “News corporations”, insofar as they operate as “the press”, enjoy special protection under the First Amendment, in which they are actually named. Of course an exception for the press is constitutional! It’s baked right in.
Second (and this is a biggie): If you can find a way for so-called “originalists” like Justices Thomas and Scalia to reconcile the idea of corporate personhood with the Framers’ intent, then I’d like to hear it.
Not surprisingly, of the two, only Scalia’s concurring opinion addressed the matter in response to Justice Stevens’s dissent (though Thomas did join it, in part). But Scalia’s argument is largely a mixture of obfuscations of Stevens’s dissenting views and outright logical fallacies, such as the following:
“Surely the dissent does not believe that speech by the Republican Party or the Democratic Party can be censored because it is not the speech of ‘an individual American.’ It is the speech of many individual Americans, who have associated in a common cause, giving the leader-ship of the party the right to speak on their behalf. The association of individuals in a business corporation is no different.”
Here, Scalia stretches valiantly to convince us that a political party, whose leadership is charged by its constituent members with the specific task of advancing a political agenda, is “no different” from a business entity, whose leaders are charged by its shareholders with the specific task of earning a profit in business!
What a sham!
That last is, after all, conservative economist Milton Friedman’s dictum!
As the owner of mutual funds and a 401(k), I am a shareholder in numerous corporations. I have no more empowered the executives of said corporations to speak on my behalf regarding political matters than I have on religious, philosophical, or medical matters! Their job (again, cf. Friedman) is to provide me with greater financial returns!
petergrt over 14 years ago
So, ‘press’ in your understanding means ‘corporations involved with the dissemination of press’ or some such?
Nonsense!
Your other arguments, regardless of how you characterize them, are also malarkey.
Scalia is right.
You seem to want to distinguish between corporations, partnerships or whatever type of entity, based upon their bylaws … by what measure? What standard?
No, as I said before free speech means unimpeded speech, political or whatever … .
riley05 over 14 years ago
Tpenna, Scalia’s attempt to equate political parties and corporations also falls flat in that many of our corporations are foreign owned.
And presumably the political parties aren’t.
tpenna over 14 years ago
No, petergrt, I meant exactly what I said. You apparently didn’t get it, so I’ll repeat the relevant parts (with emphasis for those having a hard time penetrating the straight-forward logic).
“News corporations”, insofar as they operate as “the press”, enjoy special protection under the First Amendment.
Read your opening question, and then read my last sentence. There’s your answer.
And I’ve made the measure by which an organization might be granted unfettered political speech quite clear in my above argument. It has nothing to do with whether a group is a corporation or partnership. Each and every member within said organization enjoys the right to speak out. Should a number of people wish to come together to speak out jointly, they may form such a group to that end.
But I am a shareholder in Company X for one reason and one reason only. They are to give me a financial return on my investment. I have not authorized Company X to put out an attack ad against Senator Y on my behalf.
Corporations are not organizations of people wishing to aggregate their political voices. They are people trying to aggregate and maximize their wealth. Period. This indisputably puts the lie to Scalia’s concurrence.
believecommonsense over 14 years ago
tpenna, good, well-written post.