4 ms·

What about Citizens United? The US Supreme Court Jesters declared corporations ARE people expressly so they could make unlimited political contributions, saying

What about Citizens United? The US Supreme Court Jesters declared corporations ARE people expressly so they could make unlimited political contributions, saying it is "free speech". We live in a super fucking corrupt nation.

huntaub 13y ago
No. Citizen's United merely allowed corporations to air "electioneering communications" independently of the candidate close to the election. It did not do anything regarding direct financial contributions [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec... (third paragraph)
rayiner 13y ago
Uh, no. Citizens United was about actual speech (a political movie), not money. It doesn't allow corporations to make political contributions, it says that they can't be prevented from spending money to present particular points of view. For example, take the Google, Microsoft, etc, NYT full page ad opposing NSA spying. That's precisely what Citizens United protects.
ubernostrum 13y ago
The idea of corporate personhood was not new in Citizens United. The question is not whether a corporation has rights similar to a natural person's -- in order to work at all, a corporation must have some of those rights. For example, it must have the right to own property, the right to enter into contracts, the right to bring cases in court, and so on. The question is which set of rights corporations should have, and to what extent they can be regulated. Which is far from easy to sort out or solve with simple black-and-white rules.
- lotharbot 13y ago
  To expand: SCOTUS has consistently ruled that corporations have some of the rights of a natural person _because_ "corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose" [0]. If I get together with like-minded individuals in order to do something we each have the right to do individually, in most cases, we retain the right to do it as a group (key word "most" -- as you say, which specific rights corporations should have is far from easy to sort out.) In particular, free speech is a right of "every ... association representing a segment of American life and taking an active part in our political campaigns and discussions" [1] -- unions, guilds, consumer groups, religious groups, newspapers, political parties, and so forth. Those groups are made up of individuals united for a purpose, and their choosing to unite should not penalize them by restricting their ability to speak. Justice Kennedy made a great comment to this effect: "wealthy individuals and unincorporated associations can spend unlimited amounts .... Yet [under the Austin decision] certain disfavored associations of citizens — those that have taken on the corporate form — are penalized for engaging in the same political speech .... When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful." [2] [0] Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 1886. Yes, that's eighteen eighty six. [1] US vs UAW, 1957 [2] Citizens United v FEC, 2010 - page 40 of Justice Kennedy's majority opinion
Lazare 13y ago
In Citizens United: The majority decision did not declare that corporations are people. (Rather, they noted that treating corporations as people protects the real rights of actual people in some situations. If BP was not a legal person, they could not be sued after the Deepwater oil spill. If the New York Times was not a legal person, they would have no free speach rights. If Apple was not a legal person, it would not be illegal to take their cash reserves. We want a world where BP can be sued, the New York Times can publish what they want, and Apple cannot have their assets confiscated at a whim.) They did not allow corporations to make unlimited political contributions. (Corporations still cannot make unlimited political contributions, and the case wasn't even about that. It was about independent expenditures, such as publishing a book about a candidate, or making a documentary about a political issue.) They did not say that money is speech. (They said that money facilitates speech, and thus a sufficiently strict restriction on money would be a restriction on speech. Just because money is not speech doesn't mean it would be constitutional to say that politicians from one party can only spend $5 per election cycle on ads. Eqaully, money is not abortion, but under Roe v. Wade a restriction on spending any cash to obtain or perform an abortion would still be an unconstitutional restriction on abortion rights.) Every specific claim in your comment is factually wrong.

huntaub 13y ago

No. Citizen's United merely allowed corporations to air "electioneering communications" independently of the candidate close to the election. It did not do anything regarding direct financial contributions [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec... (third paragraph)

rayiner 13y ago

Uh, no. Citizens United was about actual speech (a political movie), not money. It doesn't allow corporations to make political contributions, it says that they can't be prevented from spending money to present particular points of view. For example, take the Google, Microsoft, etc, NYT full page ad opposing NSA spying. That's precisely what Citizens United protects.

ubernostrum 13y ago

The idea of corporate personhood was not new in Citizens United. The question is not whether a corporation has rights similar to a natural person's -- in order to work at all, a corporation must have some of those rights. For example, it must have the right to own property, the right to enter into contracts, the right to bring cases in court, and so on. The question is which set of rights corporations should have, and to what extent they can be regulated. Which is far from easy to sort out or solve with simple black-and-white rules.

lotharbot 13y ago
To expand: SCOTUS has consistently ruled that corporations have some of the rights of a natural person _because_ "corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose" [0]. If I get together with like-minded individuals in order to do something we each have the right to do individually, in most cases, we retain the right to do it as a group (key word "most" -- as you say, which specific rights corporations should have is far from easy to sort out.) In particular, free speech is a right of "every ... association representing a segment of American life and taking an active part in our political campaigns and discussions" [1] -- unions, guilds, consumer groups, religious groups, newspapers, political parties, and so forth. Those groups are made up of individuals united for a purpose, and their choosing to unite should not penalize them by restricting their ability to speak. Justice Kennedy made a great comment to this effect: "wealthy individuals and unincorporated associations can spend unlimited amounts .... Yet [under the Austin decision] certain disfavored associations of citizens — those that have taken on the corporate form — are penalized for engaging in the same political speech .... When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful." [2] [0] Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 1886. Yes, that's eighteen eighty six. [1] US vs UAW, 1957 [2] Citizens United v FEC, 2010 - page 40 of Justice Kennedy's majority opinion

Lazare 13y ago

In Citizens United: The majority decision did not declare that corporations are people. (Rather, they noted that treating corporations as people protects the real rights of actual people in some situations. If BP was not a legal person, they could not be sued after the Deepwater oil spill. If the New York Times was not a legal person, they would have no free speach rights. If Apple was not a legal person, it would not be illegal to take their cash reserves. We want a world where BP can be sued, the New York Times can publish what they want, and Apple cannot have their assets confiscated at a whim.) They did not allow corporations to make unlimited political contributions. (Corporations still cannot make unlimited political contributions, and the case wasn't even about that. It was about independent expenditures, such as publishing a book about a candidate, or making a documentary about a political issue.) They did not say that money is speech. (They said that money facilitates speech, and thus a sufficiently strict restriction on money would be a restriction on speech. Just because money is not speech doesn't mean it would be constitutional to say that politicians from one party can only spend $5 per election cycle on ads. Eqaully, money is not abortion, but under Roe v. Wade a restriction on spending any cash to obtain or perform an abortion would still be an unconstitutional restriction on abortion rights.) Every specific claim in your comment is factually wrong.