4 ms·

> The gist of Citizens United was that the government couldn't ban political speech near an election. The speaker in question just happened to be a company. Uh

> The gist of Citizens United was that the government couldn't ban political speech near an election. The speaker in question just happened to be a company. Uh, no. The law in question applied only to corporations. The decision has nothing to do with individuals speaking.

rayiner 14y ago
Of course it has to do with individuals. It's hyper-legalistic to say that the fact that individuals are working through a corporation that they don't have individual rights. It's incredibly contrived, and it's a contrivance the Court didn't indulge. Also, the 'corporation' in this case was non-profit. I wasn't really looking forward to a post-Citizens United-gone the other way world where the Jeb Bush administration immediately used its newfound powers to ban speech from Sierra Club, etc.
- btilly 14y ago
  Newfound powers? Laws restricting the political activities of corporations are as old as the nation. The key issues involved in Citizens had already been decided the other way in both Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003). There would have been nothing newfound in restricting the spending of corporate money on political issues. Yes, even in the case of non-profits.
- dalke 14y ago
  Your reading of the Supreme Court decision is incorrect. Quoting from the decision: "The Court has recognized that the First Amendment applies to corporations, e.g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti , 435 U. S. 765 , and extended this protection to the context of political speech, see, e.g., NAACP v. Button , 371 U. S. 415 ." "The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech, but Austin’s antidistortion rationale would permit the Government to ban political speech because the speaker is an association with a corporate form." These specifically say that while there may be a distinction between individual free speech rights and corporate free speech rights, the First Amendment applies to both. This "hyper-legalistic" argument from Supreme the Court is different than your statement, which is that corporate free speech is identical to individual free speech. Instead, it says that all "speakers" are covered under the 1st, and that individuals and companies are examples of speakers. (" All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech." .. "That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt." .. " Political speech is so ingrained in this country’s culture that speakers find ways around campaign finance laws.", etc.) Your comparison to the Sierra Club is not a good one. The Sierra Club is a 501(c)(3), which means it has prohibitions on supporting political candidates and limits on lobbying. This is not changed by Citizen's United because of Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington, "a legislature’s decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe the right." Citizen's United is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, and income spent on political activities is, I believe, taxable and thus not subsidized. You should instead use the Supreme Court's example that the ability to restrict speech for a non-profit corporation (other than for tax reasons) implies that the government could also restrict speech for a for-profit media company. I have no immediate response to that argument. For what it's worth, I disagree with Citizen's United, and I believe that corporate rights must be subordinate to individual rights. The Court disagrees with me, and says that the only difference between a wealthy individual and a company is the limited liability, and that's insufficient to trigger a legal distinction under the First Amendment. I still disagree with that logic and believe it to be sufficient.
  - WildUtah 14y ago
    The Sierra Club is not a 501(c)3 and hasn't been for forty-five years. And it hasn't been for the reasons you mention.
    - dalke 14y ago
      You're right. It's the Sierra Club Foundation which is the (c)3. The Sierra Club is a (c)4.
  - pseingatl 14y ago
    " All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech." Not true for individuals. An individual does not to "fund" his speech, he simply speaks. Note that the entire decision is based on this false truth. None of this has anything to do with the original post.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      > An individual does not to "fund" his speech, he simply speaks. If you write something on the internet, you definitely "fund" your speech. You pay someone to host your website, you pay for bandwidth, etc. If you publish a book, you definitely "fund" your speech. Etc. Speech isn't just speaking. The freedom of speech isn't limited to just the least effectual modes of speech.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > These specifically say that while there may be a distinction between individual free speech rights and corporate free speech rights, the First Amendment applies to both. This "hyper-legalistic" argument from Supreme the Court is different than your statement, which is that corporate free speech is identical to individual free speech. That's precisely the opposite of what it says: "The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech, but Austin’s antidistortion rationale would permit the Government to ban political speech because the speaker is an association with a corporate form." This quotation clearly treats "corporate speech" not as a distinct kind of speech, but as merely the speech of an "association[] of citizens" (individuals) in "association with a corporate form." > Instead, it says that all "speakers" are covered under the 1st The way to read this consistently with the previous statement you quoted is that "all speakers" means "all speakers, regardless of association." The distinction between 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) non-profits here is irrelevant. First, see: http://www.asaecenter.org/Resources/whitepaperdetail.cfm?ItemNumber=12202 http://www.asaecenter.org/Resources/whitepaperdetail.cfm?Ite.... Second, nothing in the government's argument in support of McCain-Feinghold would have been limited to speech specifically in support of or against a candidate, or in lobbying specifically. Indeed, the law at issue in Citizens United was broader than that--it prohibited speech merely mentioning a candidate. The movie at issue didn't say "vote for Hilary Clinton" or "vote against Hilary Clinton"--it was a documentary about Hilary Clinton. 501(c)(3)'s may have certain restrictions in how they use their money to lobby candidates, but the government in Citizens United was claiming a broader power than that--the power the subject of the speech of organizations of people (corporations and labor unions). I can't find a practical distinction between a prohibition on speech "mentioning a particular candidate" and a prohibition on speech "mentioning a hot political issue." The government in Citizens United was claiming the power to ban Sierra Club from talking about mountain top coal removal or the ACLU from talking about drone warfare. When liberals talk about corporations vis-a-vis Citizens United, they only think about the "bad guys" (BP, Haliburton, etc). But guess what: the "good guys" (EFF, ACLU, Amnesty International, Sierra Club) are all corporations too! What Citizens United, rightly, says is that the government can't regulate the speech of individuals just because they are affiliated with these corporate forms.

rayiner 14y ago

Of course it has to do with individuals. It's hyper-legalistic to say that the fact that individuals are working through a corporation that they don't have individual rights. It's incredibly contrived, and it's a contrivance the Court didn't indulge. Also, the 'corporation' in this case was non-profit. I wasn't really looking forward to a post-Citizens United-gone the other way world where the Jeb Bush administration immediately used its newfound powers to ban speech from Sierra Club, etc.

btilly 14y ago
Newfound powers? Laws restricting the political activities of corporations are as old as the nation. The key issues involved in Citizens had already been decided the other way in both Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003). There would have been nothing newfound in restricting the spending of corporate money on political issues. Yes, even in the case of non-profits.
dalke 14y ago
Your reading of the Supreme Court decision is incorrect. Quoting from the decision: "The Court has recognized that the First Amendment applies to corporations, e.g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti , 435 U. S. 765 , and extended this protection to the context of political speech, see, e.g., NAACP v. Button , 371 U. S. 415 ." "The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech, but Austin’s antidistortion rationale would permit the Government to ban political speech because the speaker is an association with a corporate form." These specifically say that while there may be a distinction between individual free speech rights and corporate free speech rights, the First Amendment applies to both. This "hyper-legalistic" argument from Supreme the Court is different than your statement, which is that corporate free speech is identical to individual free speech. Instead, it says that all "speakers" are covered under the 1st, and that individuals and companies are examples of speakers. (" All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech." .. "That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt." .. " Political speech is so ingrained in this country’s culture that speakers find ways around campaign finance laws.", etc.) Your comparison to the Sierra Club is not a good one. The Sierra Club is a 501(c)(3), which means it has prohibitions on supporting political candidates and limits on lobbying. This is not changed by Citizen's United because of Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington, "a legislature’s decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe the right." Citizen's United is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, and income spent on political activities is, I believe, taxable and thus not subsidized. You should instead use the Supreme Court's example that the ability to restrict speech for a non-profit corporation (other than for tax reasons) implies that the government could also restrict speech for a for-profit media company. I have no immediate response to that argument. For what it's worth, I disagree with Citizen's United, and I believe that corporate rights must be subordinate to individual rights. The Court disagrees with me, and says that the only difference between a wealthy individual and a company is the limited liability, and that's insufficient to trigger a legal distinction under the First Amendment. I still disagree with that logic and believe it to be sufficient.
- WildUtah 14y ago
  The Sierra Club is not a 501(c)3 and hasn't been for forty-five years. And it hasn't been for the reasons you mention.
  - dalke 14y ago
    You're right. It's the Sierra Club Foundation which is the (c)3. The Sierra Club is a (c)4.
- pseingatl 14y ago
  " All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech." Not true for individuals. An individual does not to "fund" his speech, he simply speaks. Note that the entire decision is based on this false truth. None of this has anything to do with the original post.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > An individual does not to "fund" his speech, he simply speaks. If you write something on the internet, you definitely "fund" your speech. You pay someone to host your website, you pay for bandwidth, etc. If you publish a book, you definitely "fund" your speech. Etc. Speech isn't just speaking. The freedom of speech isn't limited to just the least effectual modes of speech.
- rayiner 14y ago
  > These specifically say that while there may be a distinction between individual free speech rights and corporate free speech rights, the First Amendment applies to both. This "hyper-legalistic" argument from Supreme the Court is different than your statement, which is that corporate free speech is identical to individual free speech. That's precisely the opposite of what it says: "The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech, but Austin’s antidistortion rationale would permit the Government to ban political speech because the speaker is an association with a corporate form." This quotation clearly treats "corporate speech" not as a distinct kind of speech, but as merely the speech of an "association[] of citizens" (individuals) in "association with a corporate form." > Instead, it says that all "speakers" are covered under the 1st The way to read this consistently with the previous statement you quoted is that "all speakers" means "all speakers, regardless of association." The distinction between 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) non-profits here is irrelevant. First, see: http://www.asaecenter.org/Resources/whitepaperdetail.cfm?ItemNumber=12202 http://www.asaecenter.org/Resources/whitepaperdetail.cfm?Ite.... Second, nothing in the government's argument in support of McCain-Feinghold would have been limited to speech specifically in support of or against a candidate, or in lobbying specifically. Indeed, the law at issue in Citizens United was broader than that--it prohibited speech merely mentioning a candidate. The movie at issue didn't say "vote for Hilary Clinton" or "vote against Hilary Clinton"--it was a documentary about Hilary Clinton. 501(c)(3)'s may have certain restrictions in how they use their money to lobby candidates, but the government in Citizens United was claiming a broader power than that--the power the subject of the speech of organizations of people (corporations and labor unions). I can't find a practical distinction between a prohibition on speech "mentioning a particular candidate" and a prohibition on speech "mentioning a hot political issue." The government in Citizens United was claiming the power to ban Sierra Club from talking about mountain top coal removal or the ACLU from talking about drone warfare. When liberals talk about corporations vis-a-vis Citizens United, they only think about the "bad guys" (BP, Haliburton, etc). But guess what: the "good guys" (EFF, ACLU, Amnesty International, Sierra Club) are all corporations too! What Citizens United, rightly, says is that the government can't regulate the speech of individuals just because they are affiliated with these corporate forms.