4 ms·

They actually don't. Citizens United and similar cases are not actually grounded in corporate personhood, though it is a common misconception that that's the c

by ende 12y ago

They actually don't. Citizens United and similar cases are not actually grounded in corporate personhood, though it is a common misconception that that's the case. The ruling in CU merely states that the government is denied the ability tO regulate speech, irrespective of what the object that speech emanates from is.

eevilspock 12y ago
I beg to differ. Firstly, I did not reference Citizens United, but the Supreme Court. But regardless, since you bring it up, the majority opinion in Citizens United rests on the idea that corporations are protected by the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments. It is simplistic and naive to treat corporations as just "an association of people", or even that their political interests align with their shareholders'. The vast majority of shareholders are simply looking at their return on the dollar, with little understanding of or the time and resources to look into a corporations political financing and lobbying activities, much less have access to the behind the scenes of what is really going on. A corporation takes on a will and "conscience" of its own, not necessarily in sync with its shareholders or even employees. The other basis of the ruling, that monetary contributions are protected as "free speech", is a problem because money is not anywhere near evenly distributed, and so overwhelmingly undermines the idea of "one-person, one vote". This problem would still exist without corporations having "money as free speech" rights, but it is even worse if corporations have it. I agree with Justice Stevens that "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."
- ende 12y ago
  >>the majority opinion in Citizens United rests on the idea that corporations are protected by the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments This is false. Go read the ruling yourself. It says nothing about corporate personhood. Not a single word. The entire ruling rests purely on the fact that the government is expressly prohibited from infringing on speech. The subject of speech is completely irrelevant. If rocks and trees suddenly started speaking, the government could not infringe on that speech, not because the right of speech for trees and rocks is protected by the first amendment, but because the first amendment denies the government the power to infringe upon speech, period. It is absolutely astonishing how much fuss has been generated over such a widespread ignorance of basic legal fact.

by ende 12y ago

eevilspock 12y ago

I beg to differ. Firstly, I did not reference Citizens United, but the Supreme Court. But regardless, since you bring it up, the majority opinion in Citizens United rests on the idea that corporations are protected by the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments. It is simplistic and naive to treat corporations as just "an association of people", or even that their political interests align with their shareholders'. The vast majority of shareholders are simply looking at their return on the dollar, with little understanding of or the time and resources to look into a corporations political financing and lobbying activities, much less have access to the behind the scenes of what is really going on. A corporation takes on a will and "conscience" of its own, not necessarily in sync with its shareholders or even employees. The other basis of the ruling, that monetary contributions are protected as "free speech", is a problem because money is not anywhere near evenly distributed, and so overwhelmingly undermines the idea of "one-person, one vote". This problem would still exist without corporations having "money as free speech" rights, but it is even worse if corporations have it. I agree with Justice Stevens that "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."

ende 12y ago
>>the majority opinion in Citizens United rests on the idea that corporations are protected by the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments This is false. Go read the ruling yourself. It says nothing about corporate personhood. Not a single word. The entire ruling rests purely on the fact that the government is expressly prohibited from infringing on speech. The subject of speech is completely irrelevant. If rocks and trees suddenly started speaking, the government could not infringe on that speech, not because the right of speech for trees and rocks is protected by the first amendment, but because the first amendment denies the government the power to infringe upon speech, period. It is absolutely astonishing how much fuss has been generated over such a widespread ignorance of basic legal fact.