Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

[linusrichard]

No, corporations are NOT comprised of groups of people. Corporations are entities chartered by one of the States. This new entity may well hire lots of people but that fact does not transfer the rights of those individuals to the completely different entity that gave them a job.

Yes. In fact, that's kind of the point of the corporation. Well, except the flip side of the coin. If a corporation had the same rights as the people of whom it was comprised (if that were how corporations worked), then wouldn't we expect it to have the same liabilities as well? And the whole point of corporations is to limit the liability of the owners. So if corporations worked the way Flaming Moe thinks they do, they wouldn't work at all.

 

[Peephole]

It's not like the corporations don't already rule the U.S.

Look at the bright side, at least no one will have to pretend anymore.

 

[Unabogie]

One thing to note is that many corporations are owned or partly owned by foreigners. We currently don't allow foreign citizens to send money to influence our elections, but this ruling will allow their corporations to do so. So a foreign government can set up a corporation on our soil and then use it to funnel money to candidates who they approve of.

Terrible idea.

 

[Dancing David]

And the government argued on appeal that the Constitution allows banning advocacy books for certain periods of time. I don't know any definition of "freedom of the press" that squares with that notion.


And how does pooling resources with like-minded individuals automatically put you in a "fewer rights" category?

How does acting as an economic unit create the same rights as an individual ?

I stated the basis of the court ruling, I did not say what my own feeling was, so straw attck as much as you like.

 

[Dancing David]

This strikes me as a dangerous idea...

It would give big business too much influence as I see it. This country's representatives are supposed to be picked by the people not by the few the powerful and the influential.

That is antithetical to democratic principles

That is the basis of the hundred year tradition of rstricting corporate influence in elections.

 

[FlamingMoe]

Except there's a specific exemption for commercial speech, so it doesn't apply. Follow from the start of the book topic.

The lawyer mentions the exemption is in the statute. The justice says "I'm not interested in what's in the statute".

Placing it in the realm of the hypothetical.

Yes. AND IN THIS HYPOTHETICAL, Stewart claims the Constitution does not forbid the government from doing exactly what I said.

 

[FlamingMoe]

No, corporations are NOT comprised of groups of people.

So they're like, robots and puppies and stuff?

 

[FlamingMoe]

How does acting as an economic unit create the same rights as an individual ?

No, the question is how acting as an economic unit deprives the individuals comrising thta unit of their rights.

 

[SezMe]

So they're like, robots and puppies and stuff?

Yes.

 

[SezMe]

No, the question is how acting as an economic unit deprives the individuals comrising thta unit of their rights.

Nobody said it does. Try to stay focused.

 

[FlamingMoe]

Nobody said it does. Try to stay focused.

Really? Curtailing their right to free speech isn't depriving them of anything?

Try to read next time.

 

[SezMe]

Moe, nobody is saying that an individual's right to free speech should be curtailed simply because they are employed by a corporation. What we are saying is that individual employee rights do not aggregate up to the corporate level.

 

[leftysergeant]

Out of curiosity, did the government's lawyer argue again that they had the authority under campaign law to effectively ban books or did they decide against making that claim this time around?

Psst! Turn off the radio when the fat deaf eunuch is talking. He taught you some bogus history. There was never any discussion of banning books. Not even the Shrub, under whose watch the alleged ban was created, was not that stupid that he thought he could pull that off.

(Close to it, but not QUITE that stupid.)

 

[FlamingMoe]

Moe, nobody is saying that an individual's right to free speech should be curtailed simply because they are employed by a corporation. What we are saying is that individual employee rights do not aggregate up to the corporate level.

Which means that the group of people has fewer rights than they each do individually. Which doesn't make sense.

 

[FlamingMoe]

Psst! Turn off the radio when the fat deaf eunuch is talking.

Welcome to Ignorance City. Population: you.

 

[SezMe]

Which means that the group of people has fewer rights than they each do individually. Which doesn't make sense.

Yes, of course. Can you cite any article in the Constitution that gives group rights?

 

[linusrichard]

Which means that the group of people has fewer rights than they each do individually. Which doesn't make sense.

What doesn't make sense is you continuing to insist that a corporation is a group of people. A corporation is a person (in the legal sense); it is a separate entity that is not "comprised of" people, any more than I'm "comprised of" my mom and dad, or my car is "comprised of" me and my wife.

Although a legal person, a corporation doesn't have the exact same set of rights and duties, privileges and liabilities, that human beings ("natural persons") do. (As I pointed out earlier, this is basically the point of a corporation.) A corporation is owned by a person or group of people (note this - one single person can own a corporation all by himself), and a corporation is run by a person or group of people, but these people do not constitute the corporation.

Individuals don't give up any rights by owning a corporation, or by running one, but that doesn't mean that the corporation has all the rights that its shareholders or directors have.

 

[FlamingMoe]

Yes, of course. Can you cite any article in the Constitution that gives group rights?

If there's no clause authorizing the deprivation of rights when organized into a group, why would I need to?

 

[GreNME]

If there's no clause authorizing the deprivation of rights when organized into a group, why would I need to?

No one is depriving individuals of rights, neither as individuals or as individuals in a group.

 

[jsfisher]

Moe, nobody is saying that an individual's right to free speech should be curtailed simply because they are employed by a corporation. What we are saying is that individual employee rights do not aggregate up to the corporate level.

I'm confused by the focus on the employees. The group of individuals that make up a corporation is its stock-holders, not its employees.