Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

[Dumb All Over]

But there won’t be any restriction of free speech, that’s the problem.

This quote ought to be nominated as a Stundie.

 

[Ziggurat]

What bothers me about this case (apart from the blatant hypocrisy of the five members of the majority, with one possible exception) is that there is widespread concern about governmental corruption. With this case, there is now almost no way to stop it.

Sure there is. The primary remedy for corruption is and has always been voting the bastards out of office. Campaign finance laws may be intended to prevent those in office from being corrupted, but their actual effect is to make it harder to vote the bastards out by raising barrier to entry into the political arena. That's why so many in Congress voted for "finance reform" in the first place.

And I'm still not seeing why anyone thinks that corruption will suddenly be worse with a lifting of campaign contribution limits. I'm much more concerned about things like Chris Dodd's sweetheart mortgage deal, which aren't even covered by campaign finance laws. Making it easy to donate to political campaigns may actually reduce the incentive for individuals and groups to engage in these more shady practices when they want to influence a politician.

To the extent that Justice Kennedy is under the impression that the vast amounts of cash that will be brought to bear will not be corrupting, one must question his grasp of reality.

Vast amounts of cash will always be brought to bear. It's naive to think otherwise. If that money is brought to bear through direct campaign support, is that really worse than the multitude of other ways in which money can be used to curry favor? I don't think it is. I think it's one of the more harmless ways.

The concern is that access to public officials is a limited commodity, and the special interest groups will have disproportionate access.

Again, that's already the case. Campaign finance laws haven't stopped that. I don't think there's much evidence that it will actually get worse without such laws.

 

[Sporanox]

Sure there is. The primary remedy for corruption is and has always been voting the bastards out of office. Campaign finance laws may be intended to prevent those in office from being corrupted, but their actual effect is to make it harder to vote the bastards out by raising barrier to entry into the political arena. That's why so many in Congress voted for "finance reform" in the first place.

Wow, I didn't consider that angle.

To those who talk about no federal way to limit corruption, how about term limits? Fraternization regulations? Granted, if you take the cynical (realistic?) view, Congress will never enact such laws...but they seem a feasible way of stumping long-term malfeasance.

 

[Praktik]

Wow, I didn't consider that angle.

To those who talk about no federal way to limit corruption, how about term limits? Fraternization regulations? Granted, if you take the cynical (realistic?) view, Congress will never enact such laws...but they seem a feasible way of stumping long-term malfeasance.

Also: 5-10 year time limit on joining a lobbying firm in any capacity after leaving congress. That revolving door has to stop. (ok those numbers are abitrary, but some kind of limit)

 

[Brown]

There were some hints that either the majority or the dissent in the case (which conventional wisdom says will be a 5-to-4 decision, a proposition against which I will not bet) will discuss the concept of "natural rights."
...
But we might reasonably look for a dissertation by either the majority or the dissent about the extent of rights (natural or otherwise) of corporations.

The decision was indeed 5-to-4 on the most contested issues. There were discussions about natural rights, although the term "natural rights" was not used (terminology pertaining to the rights of "natural persons," however, was used). From Justice Stevens's dissent:

It might also be added that corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their "personhood" often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of "We the People" by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.

 

[MikeMangum]

THat is such a red herring:

The Solicitor General was answering what Floyd correctly says was a hypothetical. That's where you are in law school, and they say, "Well, just supposed the facts weren't as they are, but they were something else entirely." The reality is there has never been a case in all the years we have had these laws prohibiting corporate spending prosecuting anyone for publishing a book.

The law itself has an exemption for commercial speech. So, if somebody is engaged in selling a book, it's completely exempt anyway. There's an exemption for press activity. So, this goes to my point, what we're doing here -- and I think this is why it's dangerous -- is we're essentially having a high level law school seminar on the Supreme Court about hypothetical, constitutional questions. But the potential result of that, because it is the Supreme Court, is they could end up changing the real world, when the real world actually functions without any book banning at all.​

What is the logical difference, in this context, between a book and a movie, and why would a book be protected political speech but a movie would not be?

 

[MikeMangum]

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.

Corporations are indeed groups of people. Not the people that the corporation hires, but the people that share ownership of the corporation. That is the whole point of a corporation; so that a group of people can act as one entity, legally.

 

[MikeMangum]

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

"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."

The first sentence in Wikipedia's page on Freedom of Assembly:

"Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests"

The Supreme Court has agreed with this logic consistently, the most famous case being NAACP v Alabama (1958)

Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364 ; Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530 . It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the "liberty" assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. See Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 ; Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 324 ; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 ; Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 321 . Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the [357 U.S. 449, 461] effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Not only that, but they threw out ALL campaign finance reform law since 1907... I'm not kidding. There's another thread on this decision.

If people thought the U.S. government was corrupt now, they ain't seen nothing yet

Damn. And they were so close to ending all corruption, too.

 

[WildCat]

Don't churches qualify as a group of individuals who have associated in a common cause? How long until they're allowed to run ads supporting a candidate?

ETA: And if corporations are allowed to spend unlimited amounts, why should individuals be limited to how much they can donate to a candidate? It won't be long before someone challenges that, and all limits on spending will be revoked.

Steve S.

Churches are allowed to get involved in elections. However, they'll lose their tax-exempt status if they do. But it's certainly not illegal.

 

[WildCat]

Wildcat,



What about AIPAC?

What about it?

 

[WildCat]

What is the logical difference, in this context, between a book and a movie, and why would a book be protected political speech but a movie would not be?

In the arguments before the SCOTUS one of the justices asked the government attorney that very question. The government contended they could indeed ban books if any part of it promoted a candidate.

Can everyone see how dangerous to free speech this law was now?

 

[MikeMangum]

In the arguments before the SCOTUS one of the justices asked the government attorney that very question. The government contended they could indeed ban books if any part of it promoted a candidate.

Can everyone see how dangerous to free speech this law was now?

Yes, thank you...let the Socratic method work on the others in the class please.

 

[WildCat]

Yes, thank you...let the Socratic method work on the others in the class please.

Oh...

 

[Meadmaker]

Damn. And they were so close to ending all corruption, too.

 

[MikeMangum]

Oh...

Well, too late now, they'll know that it's a trap.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Corporations are indeed groups of people. Not the people that the corporation hires, but the people that share ownership of the corporation. That is the whole point of a corporation; so that a group of people can act as one entity, legally.

Wrong. A corporation is, according to Webster's New World Law Dictionary:

An entity, usually a business, created by a legislative act or by individuals who have agreed upon and filed articles of incorporation with the state government. Ownership in the corporation is typically represented by shares of stock. Furthermore, a corporation is legally recognized as an artificial person whose existence is separate and distinct from that of its shareholders who are not personally responsible for the corporation’s acts and debts. As an artificial person, a corporation has the power to acquire, own, and convey property, to sue and be sued, and such other powers of a natural person that the law may confer upon it.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/law/corporation

I'm personally not aware of any state in the USA that places the limitation that only 2 or more people can form a corporation.

 

[MikeMangum]

Wrong. A corporation is, according to Webster's New World Law Dictionary:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/law/corporation

I'm personally not aware of any state in the USA that places the limitation that only 2 or more people can form a corporation.

I'm not sure that I ever asserted otherwise, although it is understood that generally when people are referring to corporations (or in this case, kkkorporations), they are referring to publicly owned entities that usually have thousands of shareholders.

I'm curious how a corporation having only 1 member would change the logic underlying this decision.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I'm not sure that I ever asserted otherwise, although it is understood that generally when people are referring to corporations (or in this case, kkkorporations), they are referring to publicly owned entities that usually have thousands of shareholders.

I'm curious how a corporation having only 1 member would change the logic underlying this decision.

I agree that I didn't word my response very well so that it wasn't clear that there were 2 parts to it, the second, and less important, part being the example of a single owner corporation disproving the claim that corporations are an organization consisting of a group of owners of a corporation. The important part was the dictionary definition, which showed that corporations are an legal entity that is legally separate from the owner(s) rather than an organization of owners.

 

[MikeMangum]

Obviously, you didn't read the SC holding linked in my post here, not that I blame you.

If petitioner's rank-and-file members are constitutionally entitled to withhold their connection with the Association despite the production order, it is manifest that this right is properly assertable by the Association. To require that it be claimed by the members themselves would result in nullification of the right at the very moment of its assertion. Petitioner is the appropriate party to assert these rights, because it and its members are in every practical sense identical. The Association, which provides in its constitution that "[a]ny person who is in accordance with [its] principles and policies . . ." may become a member, is but the medium through which its individual members seek to make more effective the expression of their own views.

The Association...is but the medium through which its individual members seek to make more effective the expression of their own views.