Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Awesome! There are some missing logos, and not all five of them have the same corporate owners, but a nice start.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Have any of you critics read the opinions in Citizens United? The case you describe has very little to do with the SCOTUS's decision but, as you would say, a lot to do with "talking points" of left-leaning political pundits.
Apogee, I'm not sure you (and I'm sure certainly not Ken) understand the insignificance of the corporate status for constitutional rights. First, constitutional rights do not only belong to citizens. Read the alien cases, please, before making that distinction. Then find me a taking case under the Fifth and/or Fourteenth amendment that denies compensation to the plaintiff solely because the plaintiff is a corporation.
Second, would any of you argue that Congress may abridge the free press rights of the New York Times, Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, Wall Street Journal, The Nation, National Review or any other corporation engaged in dissemination of the printed word? Ken emphasizes that these are PRESS corporations, conveniently ignoring that fact that these are press CORPORATIONS. If corporations have no constitutional rights, there is no freedom of the press.
If protection of freedom of the press differs from that for freedom of speech, please explain to me how, with particular emphasis on decisions making that distinction and how two freedoms explicitly enumerated in the First Amendment can have such disparate treatment.
Your blood-curdling screams ring false. I would appreciate critics enumerating precisely what precedents this case overruled, and why you think the precedents should still be law. Otherwise, the critics' rants sound of ignorance.
John
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Several (all?) of the four dissenting justices seemed to think that the court was overruling long-established precedent. Not having read the judgement (link, anyone?) I don't know what the majority said about the precedents, in terms of distinguishing the cases on the facts or the law, and so on. Assuming that there was a relevant precedent, they'd either have to distinguish it in some way (plausible or not), argue that it didn't apply, or overrule it. But ignoring it wouldn't be an option.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Anders (and anyone else interested),
Try this: [url="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf"].
Be prepared for some work, though. The majority and concurring opinions run about 80 pages, and the dissent about 100. IMHO, the relative lengths of the four opinions confirm that quantity times quality is a constant.
The majority and concurring opinions do, indeed, overrule two cases that, to me, have more in common with Plessy v. Ferguson andDredd Scott than Marbury v. Madison. The idea that the decision overrules 100-year-old law is patently wrong, unless extrapolating dicta constitutes overruling sub silencio.
John
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
"The case you describe has very little to do with the SCOTUS's decision but, as you would say, a lot to do with "talking points" of left-leaning political pundits."
Disturbingly, John, the SCOTUS chose to look past the Citizens United issue, and instead more broadly addressed the issue of corporate campaign funds. It's hard to find a more blatant example of judicial activism in anybody's book.
Whatever the current level of constitutional rights that corporations might hold, they should not be of the same level as individual citizens. Corporations are assemblies of individuals, true, but they are managed and directed by a very small, nothing-close-to-democratic few people, whose sole intent is to gather wealth. There is nothing wrong with being in business to make money, but there is a lot wrong with tying those special interests to our political process.
Since corporate $ always managed to find its way into the political process anyway, it remains to be seen what it's impact will be in the future. Nonetheless, there is a reason that over one hundred years of judicial precedents stood as long as they did- in one, fell swoop the SCOTUS did away with them all. The Founding Fathers are shaking their heads with furrowed brows, to be sure.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Citizens United is a non-profit corporation, as stated in the opinions.
John
Edited P. S.:
Apogee, I greatly respect your arguments and contributions here, so please bear with me. I apologize in advance if you take this as condescension. I don't mean it as such.
I am asking those who say that the majority opinion(s) in Citizens United overturned 100 years of precedents to say what precedents those opinions overturn. Most news stories I've read critical of the opinion imply that it overturns 1906 federal legislation outlawing corporated contributions to candidates' campaign funds. The case does no such thing. It outlaws restrictions on non-individuals' distribution of "electioneering materials" within 30 days of a federal primary or 60 days of a federal general election. The issue of the legality of the ban on direct contributions was not before the court, therefore anything in any of the opinions critical (or, for that matter, supportive) of that ban are what lawyers call dicta or obitur dicta (literally, "dead words.")
While dicta is certainly useful, it constitutes neither a holding nor a binding precedent. It's merely the court's expression of an opinion on something not before it and, therefore, not decided by the case.
Similarly, as the dissent points out, there is no restriction on how much "electioneering materials" non-individuals can distribute, or how much they can spend. So those who say that this opinion allows corporations to spend what they want are simply wrong. The restriction was when they could disseminate or spend it, there was never a restriciton on how much.
The real disagreement is over First Amendment jurisprudence. Free speech cases have long recognized that reasonable restrictions on the time, place or manner of speech do not violate the First Amendment. Similarly, restrictions on the content alone of speech, and particularly of political speech, generally do violate the First Amendment guarantees.
There has been a very great deal of litigation over what constitutes "political speech." In early cases, the court was less protective of "commercial speech" (i.e. speech designed to sell goods or services) than "political speech" (speech designed to affect governmental actions). That distinction has been eroding for 40 years, and the court has been granting increasing protection to "commercial speech."
As an example, in the Bates case, decided in the 1970's, the SCOTUS struck doen the Arizona State Bar's ban on attorney advertising. The Bar argued that it was simply regulating commercial speech, and not diminishing First Amendment rights. The court disagreed, saying that nothing in the Constitution said that lawyers informing the world of their existence and services were entitled to less protection than any other speech.
I am aware of no reported decision that says that the distinction between "commercial speech" and "political speech" depends on the identity of the speaker. Put another way, I am aware of no case that says that speech by a corporation is ipso facto "commercial speech," despite the assertion (significantly, without citations) that this is so.
The majority reasoned that anytime a court must inquire about the message of a particular communication, and restrict it only it if is "electioneering material," protected free speech rights are violated. The dissent says this is really a reaonable time, place or manner restriction. To me, this case is so materially different from any other time, place or manner case as to make the dissent, not the majority, the one breaking with established jurisprudence. Then again, the decision was 5-4, and I consider all of the justices intelligent and reasonable, so obviously people with those characteristics can differ.
I dislike in the extreme, however, the distortion of what this case is about, and the parroting of what the case allegedly says by people who haven't read the case, or have a political axe to grind. A Harvard Law graduate, such as the POTUS, should at least describe it correctly. If I'd tried to describe Citizens United in law school the way he did in the State of the Union, I'd have flunked.
I'm asking that those who assert that this is such an extraordinary exercise of judicial activism to provide some actual citations to support their assertions. I realize that's asking much of the non-lawyers, but I think it would be instructive if they actually looked to evaluate the reliability of the parties who purport to inform the public about this decision.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Yes, John, I'm aware of that.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
John, your explanation was not taken in condescension, and is appreciated.
I will have to defer to your judgement on the legal details of the the SCOTUS decision, and as somone without a formal law background, can't interpret the decision in the same manner as you.
As imperfect as M-F was, it was a relatively bipartisan step in the direction of dealing with a real problem- the role of corporate $ in our democracy. The SCOTUS ruling, while perhaps not directly aimed at M-F, is clearly an erosion of the precedence of events & (some) laws that are important in moving towards any real change. It saddens and frightens me to see steps taken away from protecting the voices of individuals, as those voices are already easily and constantly manipulated, and any hope for a set of protections that doesn't have free speech conflicts is a political fantasy.
Both sides of the aisle have political axes to grind here, since they both massively benefit from & depend on corporate funding in their campaigns. While Dems are definitely running around shrieking about the house on fire, Repubs are downplaying this as a simple free speech issue- in fact, both parties are absolutely complicit and guilty of contributing towards the imbalance in corporate influence in our government. And while I would agree that many on the left are inflaming this issue for political gain, I am no more trustworthy of those on the right in their 'calm down, it's not a big deal' view.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see how the next major election looks in order to see the real impact of this decision. We won't have to wait long.
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin place
|
|
I don't think this decision was a case of judicial activism.
http://www.ratical.com/corporations/ToPRaP.html
I think this decision made a leap, but it follows precedents that should have never occurred in the first place.
It has been heading this way for some time. This decision will not ruin our democracy overnight; actually the incremental, inexorable ruination has been ongoing. Years from now this country will look like the setting of a cyberpunk sci-fi novel; people will all agree that life is jacked-up, like much of our system is now only worse with everything privatized and externalized, but it will be "the way things are"; it will be normal the way people apathetically accept the way things are now as "normal", but the experiment started by the founding fathers will be over.
Corporations are not people and money is not speech.
from the link above:
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1977)
Dissent by Justices White, Brennan, Marshall: “. . . the special status of corporations has placed them in a position to control vast amounts of economic power which may, if not regulated, dominate not only our economy but the very heart of our democracy, the electoral process . . . The State need not allow its own creation to consume it.” Rehnquist also dissented: “The blessings of perpetual life and limited liability . . . so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere.”
John, how did any newspaper manage to survive before there was a 14th Amendment or a Grosjean v. American Press Co. or a Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission???
From the decision:
“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,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
Does he really believe this twisted bullsh#t?
So, yeah, I'm sure that now that coporations have been freed from any meaningful restraint on their propaganda spending and lobbying, and with the precious sanctity of corporate personhood protected by the 1st amendment, we can expect a flood of uncensored, accurate, diverse and trustworthy information to do away with all traces of control of personal thought or public discourse, and every "real person's" actual freedom to think for ourselves will be greatly enhanced . . . . . . right???
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
"Corporations are not people and money is not speech."
That sums it up nicely in my book. Any future action towards ensuring a level playing field for all voting citizens should be based on this premise.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2010 - 04:33pm PT
|
So teachers haven't been allowed to teach what/how they wanted for at least 40 years in my experience. But teachers I know nowadays are REALLY watched. Its now a purely Federal Curriculum. One I know from Phoenix retired a little early 3-4 years ago. Tired of fighting it.
Performance testing drives teachers to focus on test results for whatever the cirriculum is. The cirriculum itself is far more driven by the textbook publishing industry via the dubious proxy of the Texas public school system and, by extension, Texas school boards and legislature.
An excellent article on how public school curriculum is and has been determined in this country for decades:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?em
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin place
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2010 - 06:26pm PT
|
navblk4, midarockjock, 4damages is that you?
|
|
rockermike
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2010 - 06:58pm PT
|
“I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816
no heart beating in their chest; no fingerprints; no children from their womb. Not a person. We need to go back to basic definitions. The problem started when corporations where given the fictitious rights of persons years back.
a constitutional amendment may be the only way to fix this train...
http://movetoamend.org/
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin place
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2010 - 11:47pm PT
|
When you look at this decision and combine it with other decisions like Mayer v. Monroe County Community School Corporation the implications for the future are horrifying.
If speech equals money, then it is a commodity. There has been a market for speech for some time. Corporations have freedom of speech but their employees do not. How long before there is really no such thing as freedom of speech at all?
I am in favor of a constitutional amendment to put corporations in their place, but it won't happen. The right-wingers see the short-term advantage of huge corporate money in their campaigns and are blind to the fact that this monster will eventually turn on them too.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2010 - 11:56pm PT
|
How would that amendment be worded?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2010 - 12:45am PT
|
"I am in favor of a constitutional amendment to put corporations in their place, but it won't happen. The right-wingers see the short-term advantage of huge corporate money in their campaigns and are blind to the fact that this monster will eventually turn on them too.
"How would that amendment be worded?"
I dunno, but it would be very complicated, since the specific rights afforded corporations has become a very tangled affair over the years.
Chris Dodd is apparently taking a stab at it- he has nothing to lose, since he has announced that he won't be running again:
http://citizenvox.org/2010/01/21/dodd-voices-support-for-constitutional-amendment/
It's funny how Senators become truly effective, once they have announced their final term. Really makes you wonder just how much of the will of the people might be served if a Congressperson wasn't always viewing their decisions through the lens of career-preservation first, and interests of the people, second.
I think there is a bit of ideologic blindering going on to think that it is only the right that believes their campaigns will benefit from these corporate funds. The Dems are going to benefit just as much as the Repugs- the only losers will be us, the citizens.
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin place
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2010 - 01:22am PT
|
I don't know how it would be worded, but these are a few of the things it should require:
Corporate charters would only be granted for a limited time and would be revoked promptly for violating laws.
Corporations would only be allowed to engage in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purposes.
Corporations would not be allowed to own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
Corporations would be terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers would be held responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
Corporations would not be allowed to make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin place
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2010 - 02:50am PT
|
BES1'st, navblk4, midarockjock, 4damages, or whatever your name is today, are state mental patients allowed to vote?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!