On the Supreme Court ruling in favor of corps, unions...

[Carmen813]

If they don't share in the opinion of the group, they need not associate with it. It's their option.

Are you suggesting that a person who doesn't agree with their company's/union's political orientation should quit their job or shut up? How the hell is limiting the free speech of individuals through severe economic repercussions protecting free speech?

Sorry for the straw man, but that's what I got out of your post.

 

[Atreus21]

It's only a matter of time before we see candidates sporting company logos. It's just going to be like football and NASCAR The only corporation that I can think of that existed in substantial size during the time the first amendment was written was the East India Company, and we all know how much the founders loved them.

From Wikipedia:


Every sane individual knows that the first amendment doesn't mean that you get to do or say whatever the hell you want, and I still have not found compelling evidence that suggests a corporation or union deserves the same right as an actual human being.

On what basis, then, should a group of people be denied the same right to speech that an individual is afforded?

 

[thraashman]

If an individual has freedom of speech, why not an organization of individuals?

First off, what is a corporation but a collection of individuals. If an individual gets a voice, and then again gets a voice within a corporation then they're essentially getting two voices. Which might as well be two votes. While we're at it, why not let corporations vote as a corporate entity? And if my corporation I work for decides to use general funds that they gather in part from my work, why do they get to decide how the corporation speaks without my input? They're in essence getting to use my freedom of speech without my consent. This ruling has absolutely fuckall to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with the radical right selling out to corporations like we always knew they do.

 

[Atreus21]

Are you suggesting that a person who doesn't agree with their company's/union's political orientation should quit their job or shut up?

Sorry for the straw man, but that's what I got out of your post.

I'm saying that the groups' opinion need not be reached unanimously, and that freedom of speech should have no dependence on the presence of lack of unanimity of opinion.

 

[Atreus21]

First off, what is a corporation but a collection of individuals. If an individual gets a voice, and then again gets a voice within a corporation then they're essentially getting two voices. Which might as well be two votes. While we're at it, why not let corporations vote as a corporate entity? And if my corporation I work for decides to use general funds that they gather in part from my work, why do they get to decide how the corporation speaks without my input? They're in essence getting to use my freedom of speech without my consent. This ruling has absolutely fuckall to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with the radical right selling out to corporations like we always knew they do.

And conversely, this has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech, and everything to do with the radical left freaking out at the mention of anything that involves the word 'corporation.'

I don't agree. If you don't like what the majority of individuals like in your organization, it seems sensible to me that you wouldn't associate with it. No one's trying to give organizations the right to vote.

 

[Carmen813]

On what basis, then, should a group of people be denied the same right to speech that an individual is afforded?

I'm not talking about you and your neighbor going and holding signs, or you gathering money from 10,000 individuals to buy a TV ad, but a corporation.

I'm going to go off Wikipedia. I acknowledge that it is not the best source in the world.

A corporation is an institution that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members.

So already a corporation is defined as having different privileges from the individuals who created it. This is done to protect the individuals who formed it, usually for liability purposes.

Later in that same article:

Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[2] and they may be responsible for human rights violations.[3] Just as they are "born" into existence through its members obtaining a certificate of incorporation, they can "die" when they lose money into insolvency. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offences, such as fraud and manslaughter.

First time I have seen that corporations have rights "like" actual people. Essentially a corporation is a "legal person." However, further reading here suggests that this does not mean a "legal person" has all the same rights, as demonstrated by this quote:

This legal fiction does not mean these entities are human beings, but rather means that the law allows them to act as persons for certain limited purposes—most commonly lawsuits, property ownership, and contracts. This concept is separate from and should not be confused with limited liability or the joint stock principle.[2] Also note that basic rights (like the rights to free speech and due process of law) do not necessarily follow from legal personhood.

So we are at an impasse. It seems to me that the Supreme Court extended the rights of legal personhood. It seems at best to me that the Supreme Court created a legal fiction with regards to it's decision in this case. In my opinion, this was simply judicial activism.

*edit*
My understanding is that most corporations are not democratic. The people at the top make the decisions and they are supposed to do it in the best interest of their shareholders. The only way I see this ruling staying true to democratic principles is by allowing shareholders of corporations to vote for which candidate the company will support. Otherwise I see this as no different that something like how the Chinese government operates, where those few in power make all the decisions.

 

[thraashman]

And conversely, this has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech, and everything to do with the radical left freaking out at the mention of anything that involves the word 'corporation.'

I don't agree. If you don't like what the majority of individuals like in your organization, it seems sensible to me that you wouldn't associate with it. No one's trying to give organizations the right to vote.

Who says it's the majority? The people at the top decide what to do with the money. There could be no more than 10 people in a 20k person company who agree with a viewpoint, but if those 10 are at the top then the company spends the money that way. And if I don't agree with company's political philosophy and I come out about it, if that puts my job safety at risk that's limiting my free speech. That's not that different from the government saying "you can say whatever you want, we wont' stop you. but we will arrest you for saying it after you finish". Sounds to me like you advocate a near complete removal of free speech from everyone who isn't incorporated.

 

[Hacp]

I just want to make sure I'm clear on your stance.

So Big banks, Big Unions, Big corporations, Big blimps shouldn't be able to advertise or voice their point of view in their best interest?

How about Small banks, Small unions, Small business, Small blimps? Where would you like to draw the line?

You draw the line at the person. If five people want to support a cause and advertise, then its ok. If five people including the ceo work for the same company and want to advertise using their own money, its ok.

Now if the ceo of that company decides to use company money to put an ad on the newspaper, there is nothing wrong with that. However, in that case, the constitution doesn't provide protection. The constitution doesn't forbid it but there is no protection. 80% of Americans both democrat, independent and republican agree here.

One thing I am against though is the restriction of personal wealth to fund someone else's campaign. If an individual wants to use his wealth to promote his desired candidate, why shouldn't he be able to? Why do we have restrictions on campaign donations? In that case, yes freedom of speech is violated in my opinion.

 

[Fern]

all shareholders in specific classes have to be treated equally and exactly how each class is treated vis-a-vis other classes is laid out in advance.

in short, no.


i don't remember everything in my various corporate finance classes, but iirc diluting shareholder value by inserting a new class of stocks that get fist dibs at a dividend is something that delaware actually frowns upon. and there aren't many things that delaware frowns upon when it comes to sucking off directors.

You're correct.

By giving dividends selectively to a few shareholders you create a seperate class of stock. In this case a preferred class. They can't do that without with a vote etc.

Fern

 

[Atreus21]

I'm not talking about you and your neighbor going and holding signs, or you gathering money from 10,000 individuals to buy a TV ad, but a corporation.

I'm going to go off Wikipedia. I acknowledge that it is not the best source in the world.


So already a corporation is defined as having different privileges from the individuals who created it. This is done to protect the individuals who formed it, usually for liability purposes.

Later in that same article:


First time I have seen that corporations have rights "like" actual people. Essentially a corporation is a "legal person." However, further reading here suggests that this does not mean a "legal person" has all the same rights, as demonstrated by this quote:



So we are at an impasse. It seems to me that the Supreme Court extended the rights of legal personhood. It seems at best to me that the Supreme Court created a legal fiction with regards to it's decision in this case. In my opinion, this was simply judicial activism.

*edit*
My understanding is that most corporations are not democratic. The people at the top make the decisions and they are supposed to do it in the best interest of their shareholders. The only way I see this ruling staying true to democratic principles is by allowing shareholders of corporations to vote for which candidate the company will support. Otherwise I see this as no different that something like how the Chinese government operates, where those few in power make all the decisions.

On your point about corporations, I think I agree with Kennedy's opinion (also from Wikipedia):

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." He also noted that since there was no way to distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs.

Also, in response to your edit, I have no argument against your point. I would be completely agreeable to a law that required a voting procedure of some kind regarding political support for candidates, so long as it was applied to all organizations, unions included.

 

[Carmen813]

Atreus,
So what if a law was created that distinguished the rights and privileges of a "media corporation" and other corporations. Essentially, if this law allowed separate definitions to protect newspapers, television, radio, books, ect, and new campaign finance law was written around it, would you support it?

I was thinking in the shower (it's a slow day) about this some more. The Supreme Court has already ruled that "free speech" does not mean you get to say anything you want. We cannot go into a building and scream "Fire, run for your lives!" because it endangers others. Similarly, slander is illegal. Even Scott Brown would support this limitation on "free speech," the day before he was elected he had his lawyers sue due to a mailing that distorted his position on abortion. Some (not you necessarily) have basically taken the position that free speech means you can do whatever you want, but that is obviously untrue.

My personal feeling is that, when you boil it all down, a corporation exists to limit liability to its members while they provide a product or service. It already has privileges above that of which an individual gets when it comes to monetary risk. Corporations should be free to do anything they want to promote their product when comparing it to that offered by another entity. However, I draw the line at elections for government officials. Each member of the corporation already has the right to vote and to donate money to the candidate of their choice. Giving them another way to do so strikes me as simply giving even more power to those who already wield great power. Given that so many corporations are multinational, I also fear that it would allow foreigners to influence our elections. I understand that this ruling didn't change foreign money, but it strikes me as incredibly difficult to enforce that prohibition (not to mention costly). Overall, this strikes me as a way to further disenfranchise those at the bottom and to consolidate power at the top.

Also, I know I've used the word "corporation" a lot, but I feel the exact same way about unions.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
My understanding is that most corporations are not democratic. The people at the top make the decisions and they are supposed to do it in the best interest of their shareholders. The only way I see this ruling staying true to democratic principles is by allowing shareholders of corporations to vote for which candidate the company will support. Otherwise I see this as no different that something like how the Chinese government operates, where those few in power make all the decisions.

Corporations have some flexibility in how they are governed. Basically the states set up guidleines/parameters, and the corporation create their governing rules within those parameters. They'll be documents such as the Articles of Incorporatuion and Shareholder Agreements.

Corporations are somehwat democratic, however it's not person one vote. It's one share of stock equals one vote. So some individual shareholders may have many more votes than others due to their larger ownership of stock.

Who says it's the majority? The people at the top decide what to do with the money. There could be no more than 10 people in a 20k person company who agree with a viewpoint, but if those 10 are at the top then the company spends the money that way. And if I don't agree with company's political philosophy and I come out about it, if that puts my job safety at risk that's limiting my free speech. That's not that different from the government saying "you can say whatever you want, we wont' stop you. but we will arrest you for saying it after you finish". Sounds to me like you advocate a near complete removal of free speech from everyone who isn't incorporated.

I cannot see a CEO etc of a large corporation taking upon him/herself to unilaterally decide to expend the corps' money for some candidate of their liking. I find it highly unlikely that political contributions are part of any of the corp's rules, if so, deciding to make that contribution would be unauthorized. Corporate funds are to be used to enhance/develop business and increase shareholders profits. I doubt any large corporations have authorization for political advertising expenditures built into their governing documents. They may have lobbying for issues that affect them. but specific candidates?

Moreover, in large corporations there are many diverse large shareholder. These groups will not be sharing political ideology meaning no agreement.

I suppose that in very limited circumstances there could be concensus that ther4 is a legitimate business purpose for supporting a specific candidate. E.g., let's say one candidate wanted to outlaw guns (can't actually happen) so gun manufaturers would have a valid business purpose to support the other. But this would be quite limited.

BTW: Michael Moore produces his films through a corporation. How he can advertise his political films and the plantiff couldn't strikes me as wrong.

We already have many corporations doing political 'advertising' as it is. Hollywood movies, various TV shows (West Wing etc), media corporations like newspapers and cable etc.

Unlike others I don't expect a big change resulting from this ruling. Instead, I think the Michael Moore psuedo-documentary type political propaganda film might have a larger impact. I expect more, and this time likely from the Right, will join in along with the Moore type films. And really, that's all this case was about IMO. Anti- Bush and Repub films were OK, but not anti- Hillary and Dem films, the SCOTUS fixed that. And until someone puts forth a convincing reason, I can't see why making money out of politics (like MSNBC, CBS, Fox News, Rush etc already do) by making political films is wrong.

But if this ruling goes so far as to let corporations run unlimited ads for politicians we'll at least have the benefit of knowing who sponsors them, who owns them. Currently, we think that they are 'owned' but we don't by who.

Fern

 

[Atreus21]

Atreus,
So what if a law was created that distinguished the rights and privileges of a "media corporation" and other corporations. Essentially, if this law allowed separate definitions to protect newspapers, television, radio, books, ect, and new campaign finance law was written around it, would you support it?

I think it would largely depend on the wording. I should point out that I haven't read the entirety of this decision, as I'm sure most of us haven't.

However, I'd be surprised if such a law would pass constitutional standards. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Will continue on this after your next point...

I was thinking in the shower (it's a slow day) about this some more. The Supreme Court has already ruled that "free speech" does not mean you get to say anything you want. We cannot go into a building and scream "Fire, run for your lives!" because it endangers others. Similarly, slander is illegal. Even Scott Brown would support this limitation on "free speech," the day before he was elected he had his lawyers sue due to a mailing that distorted his position on abortion. Some (not you necessarily) have basically taken the position that free speech means you can do whatever you want, but that is obviously untrue.

Certainly, I'm in favor of limits on free speech that curbs people's ability to damage others by lying. But I don't see how this falls under that category. I think some liberals firmly believe that this is throwing open a gate for direct financing of candidates by businesses, when it clearly is not.

My personal feeling is that, when you boil it all down, a corporation exists to limit liability to its members while they provide a product or service. It already has privileges above that of which an individual gets when it comes to monetary risk. Corporations should be free to do anything they want to promote their product when comparing it to that offered by another entity. However, I draw the line at elections for government officials. Each member of the corporation already has the right to vote and to donate money to the candidate of their choice. Giving them another way to do so strikes me as simply giving even more power to those who already wield great power. Given that so many corporations are multinational, I also fear that it would allow foreigners to influence our elections. I understand that this ruling didn't change foreign money, but it strikes me as incredibly difficult to enforce that prohibition (not to mention costly). Overall, this strikes me as a way to further disenfranchise those at the bottom and to consolidate power at the top.

Also, I know I've used the word "corporation" a lot, but I feel the exact same way about unions.

Well, my personal opinion is that a corporation is not real. It's a complete abstraction. As you said earlier, at its basis, it's just a group of individuals. The constitution makes no distinction for corporations, but it does sometimes make references to assemblies.

I should point out again that I'm not advocating giving corporations the right to vote.

Similarly, any money that comes from corporations comes from individuals.

This is getting very abstract, but it begins to sum up my opinion. I don't care what the group is called, or for what reason they've assembled, or what they're interests are, or if they're unanimous or fragmented. If they choose to speak as one, I don't see why they shouldn't have freedom of speech in that regard.

 

[Carmen813]

I think it would largely depend on the wording. I should point out that I haven't read the entirety of this decision, as I'm sure most of us haven't.

However, I'd be surprised if such a law would pass constitutional standards. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Will continue on this after your next point...



Certainly, I'm in favor of limits on free speech that curbs people's ability to damage others by lying. But I don't see how this falls under that category. I think some liberals firmly believe that this is throwing open a gate for direct financing of candidates by businesses, when it clearly is not.



Well, my personal opinion is that a corporation is not real. It's a complete abstraction. As you said earlier, at its basis, it's just a group of individuals. The constitution makes no distinction for corporations, but it does sometimes make references to assemblies.

I should point out again that I'm not advocating giving corporations the right to vote.

Similarly, any money that comes from corporations comes from individuals.

This is getting very abstract, but it begins to sum up my opinion. I don't care what the group is called, or for what reason they've assembled, or what they're interests are, or if they're unanimous or fragmented. If they choose to speak as one, I don't see why they shouldn't have freedom of speech in that regard.

I guess where I'm losing it is with the fact that so many people work for a company. If I join a group or political party and start to disagree with them, it's fairly easy and relatively harmless for me to leave. If my company begins engaging in political ideology I strongly disagree with my only real recourse is to quit my job or to just ignore it (and thus silence my individual speech). I feel this would be less of an issue if employees/share holders were given the opportunity to vote for who the company will support (in a truly democratic manner, 1 person, 1 vote).

I can think of many theoretical situations where a small group of individuals making these decisions could cause harm to many others.

 

[Craig234]

Fern wrote:
Corporations are somehwat democratic, however it's not person one vote. It's one share of stock equals one vote. So some individual shareholders may have many more votes than others due to their larger ownership of stock.

That's what democracy is about. Wealth is concentrated in a few hands. If wealth is power, than you have the tyranny of the wealthy few over the powerless many.

You get a very powerful corporation who a small number of people often have control of deciding what it wants to do based only on its own profit, not the good of society.

But against that you have the people given a vote each, for them to get to say what they want through a government that can override the corporation. In the theory of democracy.

But what we get a lot is the corporation using its money to pay for propagandizing the public to let the corporation have more power and not be interfered with by the people.

The right-wing think tanks, led by Cato, Heritage and AEI, the Republican party now, the right-wing media. are instruments now for increasing corporate powerr over the people.

 

[Vette73]

How about this, keep it simple. Make an amendment that says Corps/Unions/Pacs/etc… are not people/human and do not have rights unless given to them by law.

Not sure how a organization gets the same rights as a person yet can’t be arrested and/or held accountable like a person can.

 

[Carmen813]

How about this, keep it simple. Make an amendment that says Corps/Unions/Pacs/etc… are not people/human and do not have rights unless given to them by law.

Not sure how a organization gets the same rights as a person yet can’t be arrested and/or held accountable like a person can.

Well, depending on what it is, they can be held accountable. Read my links.

 

[MJinZ]

Uh, do you people read or just spew?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=08-205#opinion1

Please educate yourself before listening to other people's spew.

You may or may not agree with each of the Justices, but they lay out their opinions very clearly in nearly 100 pages - so please stop running your mouths and see what the rationale is behind each vote.

PS - it does come down a fundamental disagreement between the Justices on how much the First Amendment's protection should apply to Corporations.

 

[Carmen813]

Uh, do you people read or just spew?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=08-205#opinion1

Please educate yourself before listening to other people's spew.

You may or may not agree with each of the Justices, but they lay out their opinions very clearly in nearly 100 pages - so please stop running your mouths and see what the rationale is behind each vote.

Thanks for the link. I skimmed through it, and it addressed some of what I brought up, specifically about corporations not being natural persons. That said, I didn't really find the argument that compelling (of what I understood).

I see some of the problems the previous law had now though. Basically I'm at the point where I would support a law requiring a shareholder vote to decide on what candidate to support, or a constitutional amendment of some kind.

 

[Hacp]

Uh, do you people read or just spew?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=08-205#opinion1

Please educate yourself before listening to other people's spew.

You may or may not agree with each of the Justices, but they lay out their opinions very clearly in nearly 100 pages - so please stop running your mouths and see what the rationale is behind each vote.

PS - it does come down a fundamental disagreement between the Justices on how much the First Amendment's protection should apply to Corporations.

I find this argument to be really silly. Corporations are a government made entity. They are not real. What would happen if tomorrow, all the states and the federal government rescinded everyone's corporate charter? It is a concept created by the government, not something that happens naturally.

This is pure activist benching by the 5 justices on the right. Sigh.

 

[Zebo]

If that is the case, it needs to go further in regulation. It should just be a statement of fact such as, Apple supports Obama. Nothing more. No American flags, eagles, patriotic music, little children, or anything else used to generated additional emotional responses.

They will just use innocuous pass throughs like "rotary" and "chamber of commerce" "supports so and so" to avoid impropriety. Actually they already do this locally.