General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"A partnership to speak" SCOTUS Justice Thomas explains...
I've often wondered about the logic behind "Citizens United." Here's why Thomas decided in favor:
If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, youd say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association, he said. If you all then formed a partnership to speak, youd say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.
But what if you put yourself in a corporate form? Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.
The New York Times
So the mail-room clerk at MegaCorp can speak just as freely as the CEO from the corporate pulpit? And, could he or she use corporate money to give to politicians and PACs? What about employees who are fired because they engage in political activity that runs contrary to their employer's beliefs?
Also from the article:
He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.
Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation, Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.
It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as some sort of beatific action.
So, he decided in favor of corporate personhood because of the Tillman Act of 1907, as he "heard the story?"
EC
(12,287 posts)of a single cause or viewpoints to speak as one is completely different than a company. A company is made up of many people who do not share the same causes or viewpoints, but are given a single voice in politics by Citizen's United.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)EC
(12,287 posts)So I'm really not sure how the outcome of the decision fullfills their mission except to confirm that corps are people or a "citizen".
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)They were organized to produce and publish a movie.
Does Warner Brothers have a first amendment right to make whatever movies it wants?
What makes CU different?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Response to KansDem (Original post)
1GirlieGirl This message was self-deleted by its author.
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)They are a form of dictatorship since the CEOs abd Chairmen can dictate policy. The employees and sharholders have no say in reality. Of course, any intelligent being who has observed the actual behavior of corporation know that, but this Bozo will do anything to protect his benefactors.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The irony here is that you are posting this via Democratic Underground LLC, a formal business organization which manages a website for the purpose of posting the opinions of its users, subject to DU's moderation rules alone.
So, if a government official doesn't like a posting here, they have the authority to have it taken down. Is that correct?
KansDem
(28,498 posts)We're all here because we share the same values. You can't say the same for corporations.
Employees of corporations have freedom of speech, but not at work. Only the CEO (or board) has "freedom of speech" in the corporation. And freedom to use the corporate coffers for political donations. If you're simply an employee, try getting some of that corporate "freedom of speech" money for your own "freedom of speech" donation. See what happens.
That's what's "ironic."
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)-------
Kellogg's was founded as the Battle Creek Toasted Corn Flake Company on February 19, 1906, by Will Keith Kellogg as an outgrowth of his work with his brother John Harvey Kellogg at the Battle Creek Sanitarium following practices based on the Seventh-day Adventist Christian denomination.
-------
Citizen's United was a corporation organized to produce political speech. That was the purpose of that corporation.
The question in the case, simplified, was whether money provided by the corporate sponsors of CU constituted an indirect payment in support of a candidate for office.
Now, when you watch Rachel Maddow on television, that program is being paid for by GM, GE, Lexus, and a host of other advertisers.
Should corporations be allowed to run commercials on networks airing political content? If your answer is "no", then we can expect political content on television to disappear right quick.
FOX has sponsors you won't find on MSNBC, and vice versa.
Now, in the commercial context, you can say that what those companies are doing is paying to promote their products to an audience.
However, if you are saying it is not in a corporation's interest to promote things that will improve the bottom line of that corporation, then I kind of wonder "why not?" Those Chevron commercials where all of those diverse people "agree" that fracking is just wonderful, aren't exactly selling gasoline. They are attempting to influence public opinion on an issue that matters to their bottom line. So that when you see a politician who wants to ease drilling regulations, you say, "Oh, yes, all of those lovely people on the commercial said we really need it, and they'll do it responsibly."
Are the Chevron commercials "political" or not?
Look at the commercials that run during Sunday morning talk shows. Why is Boeing defense systems running television commercials. Are any of the viewers thinking about buying a bomber?
moondust
(19,972 posts)As far as I know corporations can gather their employees and scream at the top of their lungs until the cops come by to warn them about disturbing the peace. Or herd them into a "free speech zone" or something.
Is Clarence talking to his wallet again?