Let's be clear: Corporations are not people

[ProSense]

Let's be clear: Corporations are not people

By Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen

<...>


Second, a robust public financing system is the single most important legislative response to unlimited corporate spending. Qualified candidates should be provided with generous amounts of public funds for their campaigns so they can answer corporate-funded attack ads.

Finally, we must realize that the Citizens United decision is so sweeping, and this Court is so set on legislating, that a constitutional amendment is in order to clarify for the Court what the First Amendment means.

Corporations are not people, they do not vote, and they should not be able to influence election outcomes. It is time to end this debate by amending the Constitution to make clear that First Amendment rights belong to natural persons and the press and do not apply to for-profit corporations.

No one should take amending the Constitution lightly, especially the First Amendment. It is a matter that requires careful deliberation. But five justices have interpreted the First Amendment in a way that does grave harm to our democracy, and the Court shows every sign of extending the damage further. A constitutional amendment is the only wayto overcome with finality the profound challenges to our democracy posed by the Citizens United decision.

[gateley]

1. WE'RE clear on that, it's just 5 members of SCOTUS who don't get it. And lots of Repubs. nt

[troubledamerican]

12. Let's be clear: SCOTUS gets it. They are dismantling with a purpose.

Do we get that?

[Enthusiast]

15. They get it.

They know exactly what they are doing. They know they just handed their corporate cronies the keys to the kingdom. They know the United States of America is forever transformed.

It would serve them right if these five were lined up for an early morning firing squad. And I mean that most sincerely, with all my heart.

[Blue Owl]

2. I'm trusting my own brain on this one

Not the sold-out SCOTUS.

[Cha]

3. Yes, it's a no brainer and gopers don't care..so let's amend

the Constitution..I don't care what russ feingold doesn't want.

http://freespeechforpeople.org/petition

http://freespeechforpeople.org/

Even if it's impossible we should try.

[onenote]

4. could someone please define exactly what constitutes the press?

Obviously, newspapers are the press. Are movies? Are the corporations that make movies protected as part of the press? Does whether a movie (and the corporation that makes it or the corporation that owns the theater that displays it) is the "press" depend on the content and subject matter? Is Deep Throat the press? If so, why wouldn't "Hillary" the movie at issue in the CU case also be "the press"?

Railing against corporate personhood misses the point of where the SCOTUS went off the rails in CU. Its not that corporations are protected by the first amendment. As even Justice Stevens points out, no one serious contends otherwise. Where the court went off the rails was is finding that the first amendment applies without differentiation to corporate and individual speech in the electoral context. In fact, however, the courts have never treated the first amendment as an absolute. Lines are drawn, distinctions are made all the time. The issue is whether there is a sufficient governmental rationale for the distinction. The legislature's judgment was that there is ample governmental interest in regulating corporate involvement in elections differently than individual participation. And the SCOTUS majority's decision to ignore that judgment was the height of irresponsible judicial activism.

The decision needs to be corrected, either by another attempt by the legislature or if necessary by constitutional amendment. But whatever action is taken needs to focus at the issue in question and not use a sledgehammer that will either miss its target or hit several others along the way.

[ProSense]

6. The press is not a friggin corporation

The press is an entity for free expression and speech. The airwaves are public. You are trying to equate the press as protected in the first amendment with a corporation. That's utterly bogus. The press is a collective body of individual voices. The press is not a corporation. People write op-ed, articles, editorials, etc. These are the voices of many people. WaPo's editors don't claim to speak for the people whose op-eds it publishes and don't endorse the views of its op-ed writers. The press is created by people's voices.

A corporation is not a person. You are attempting to assign personhood to special interests groups. Who is a corporation going to speak for? Who is the person they are representing?






edited typo

[onenote]

9. you haven't answered my question: is a movie "the press"?

Is the movie theater that exhibits a movie 'the press'? Is a bookstore that sells books "the press"? The company that makes a movie isn't a natural person. The bookstore isn't a natural person. A movie theater isn't a natural person.


when an injuinction was sought against the Ny Times Inc. (not the individual editors who make decisions as to what to publish), do you think the court should have allowed it because the NY Times Inc. isn't "the press"?

[ProSense]

10. Why are you asking a ridiculous question.

Movies and other artistic expression (by people) are protected under free speech. A movie has nothing to do with the the press.

[onenote]

11. ducking the question still

If the constitution is amended to state that the term "persons" as used anywhere therein is limited to natural persons and does not include a corporate entity, under what Constitutional law theory would the court strike down a state law that dictated to a bookstore what books it can sell or dictated to a movie theater what movies it could exhibit or directed a newspaper to obtain a license from the state and submit all of its stories to a government censor before publishing them.

Please explain what part of the Constitution prevents a state from doing these things.

[boppers]

7. Well, press is the news, and corporations which create "fair and balanced" news should be allowed.

I'm hoping a sarcasm tag isn't needed to point out that drawing lines between press, and corporations, is near impossible.

[paulsby]

8. the other question is,

to what extent the authority to regulate "corporate involvement" outweighs the rights of free speech.

as noted, the 1st amendment is not limited to protecting the rights of persons.

the 1st amendment does not grant or recognize rights, so much as it restricts govt. it says govt. cannot restrict free speech and the press. those are things, independent of who engages in them. whether a corporation (union, company, tribe, etc.) or an individual creates the speech, it's still speech

also note that media outlets like newspapers, etc. have always been immune from the law overturned in the instant case . iow, it didn't apply to the new york times, etc.

also note that one of the lawyers defending the status quo (before the decision) pointed out that under the CU standard, even BOOKS could violate the law, not just tv advertisements, etc. think about that.

[flpoljunkie]

5. If 'money is speech' than those without money have no voice in our democracy.

What kind of democracy is that?

[harkadog]

13. You just made a post giving an opinion.

How much did it cost you?

[flpoljunkie]

14. The problem is the pervasive and corrosive influence of money in politics.

Comparing that to an 'opinion' on a Dem blog is ludicrous.

[harkadog]

19. Were you opposed to Obama because he spent far more

money than McCain?

[JoePhilly]

16. They are BETTER than people because they have more money

[Enthusiast]

17. Corporations already speak

with a megaphone while ordinary citizens speak in a whisper. Free speech has to be equal or it will be government by the highest bidder. That is perfectly clear because we are already living the results.

[AngryAmish]

18. Agreed: Soylent Green is people.