# Any legislation that would render Citizens United moot? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 8, 2015, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legislation-that-would-render-citizens-united-moot/730369 "2015-09-08T19:27:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legislation-that-would-render-citizens-united-moot/730369/21 "2015-09-09T20:34:04Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Why? Disney has the right to hire lobbyists to explain its concerns to Congress; we’re talking about campaign financing. _Since you already accept the notion that there be per-individual limits on such spending_, why does any “right” apply to corporations? The idea that corporations are “juridicial persons” is just a didactic notion that has been taken _much_ too far. Howard Berman is a huge supporter of copyright protection. Why shouldn’t Disney Corp. as a copyright holder have a right to support his re-election to the House? ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legislation-that-would-render-citizens-united-moot/730369/22 "2015-09-09T22:42:46Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Only if you define money as a form of speech, which is neither an obvious or historical definition. Money was not legally defined as speech until 1976. > > The very fact that so many people now accept as a given the argument that money is speech shows the power money has to change the way people think. FECA was only passed in 1971, and so there was no need to recognize First Amendment protections against certain of its provisions before then. By striking down portions of that law, Buckley v. Valeo essentially restored the previous state of affairs as to those points. It’s campaign finance restrictions that are relatively new and anomalous, not the limits on those restrictions. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legislation-that-would-render-citizens-united-moot/730369/23 "2015-09-10T00:33:42Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > To veer off and answer another question raised earlier, when I studied the civil war, the teacher simply said that it was widely understood that one of the intended effects of the civil rights amendments was to include corporations as “persons”. That interpretation doesn’t seem obvious to me, but apparently it was at the time. I find that questionable. Corporations barely existed in the 1860’s when these amendments were enacted. And the text of the amendments doesn’t reflect any apparent desire to extend personhood to corporations. There’s certainly nothing explicit in the text that says anything on the subject. What the text specifies “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” and that rights shall not be denied based on account of race or color which would be strange language to use if your intent was to extend rights to corporations. It seems to me that the text of these amendments was in accord with the mainstream interpretation - that they were directed towards black people in general and former slaves in particular. If, on the other hand, these amendments were intended to give rights to corporations, it took a long time for anyone to apply them. It wasn’t until 1886 that the Supreme Court declared that the 14th Amendment applied to corporations. If that had been one of the main intents of its enactors, you’d think they would have pushed for a quicker implementation. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legislation-that-would-render-citizens-united-moot/730369/24 "2015-09-10T00:37:05Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > GQ, y’all. True, but I feel that what the OP asked was more of a topic for Great Debates rather than a case of a General Questions OP being hijacked. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legislation-that-would-render-citizens-united-moot/730369/25 "2015-09-10T00:45:54Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > In an era when money is required to effectively disseminate your message, money is speech. How could it be otherwise? Limiting money spent is limiting one’s ability to effectively speak your message, especially if media advertising is how the message is sent. Similarly, giving a person money to spread a message you agree with is you speaking through your “fellow traveller”. (Similarly anonymity is a component of free speech, since in the real world people who speak up could be subject to intimidation.) I think you have the tail wagging the dog. Money is now necessary to run a campaign because the Buckley decision created such a situation. Allowing money to run campaigns means that candidates are marketed like beer brands and need expensive advertising campaigns to be sold. So candidates need to be willing to sell their services to wealthy sponsors in order to have a chance of being elected. If money wasn’t legally defined as speech, its influence in campaigns could be regulated and limited. Speech would be about the content of the message rather than the selling of a product. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legislation-that-would-render-citizens-united-moot/730369/26 "2015-09-10T00:46:45Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Howard Berman is a huge supporter of copyright protection. Why shouldn’t Disney Corp. as a copyright holder have a right to support his re-election to the House? As a thought experiment, suppose the big Disney-equivalent were a corporation owned and operated by a foreign company. Do you still support its right to such campaign spending? If not, what’s the difference with Disney? American owners and employees? Let those human elements exercise their speech and donation rights. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legislation-that-would-render-citizens-united-moot/730369/27 "2015-09-10T00:57:45Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > As a thought experiment, suppose the big Disney-equivalent were a corporation owned and operated by a foreign company. Do you still support its right to such campaign spending? If not, what’s the difference with Disney? American owners and employees? Let those human elements exercise their speech and donation rights. To the first point, if DisneyCorp is chartered in California it is an American entity not a foreign one no matter who owns it. To the second point, a corporation may have interests different than the owners/shareholders. Cletus who has 100 shares of Microsoft in a retirement mutual fund may not care about the _Alice_ decision but you can bet that the corporation Microsoft certainly does. So saying that Cletus as an owner of Microsoft should support candidates that support software patents because he is an owner of MS is very misguided. But I still don’t see why corporations qua an American business (i.e. not as a collection of individual owners) shouldn’t have donation rights in U.S. elections. Your second point may be applicable to owners of a small LLC that are very hands on but not in this day of absentee owners via stock who have no say in the running of a company. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legislation-that-would-render-citizens-united-moot/730369/28 "2015-09-10T04:58:48Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I think you have the tail wagging the dog. Money is now necessary to run a campaign because the Buckley decision created such a situation. Allowing money to run campaigns means that candidates are marketed like beer brands and need expensive advertising campaigns to be sold. So candidates need to be willing to sell their services to wealthy sponsors in order to have a chance of being elected. > > If money wasn’t legally defined as speech, its influence in campaigns could be regulated and limited. Speech would be about the content of the message rather than the selling of a product. Not really. If in order to disseminate your message, you need money - then money is speech. (Just ask those TV evangelists, whose need for money is driven by the need to spread their message as widely as possible - and their need for gold bathroom fixtures.) That didn’t suddenly appear in one year due to a supreme court decision. Ads and flyers and hired town criers and such have always cost money. A right to free speech is not free speech if it says “but we can regulate so that you cannot afford to do anything but stand on a soap box and yell”. With the advent of mass media, the cost of disseminating your message has gone up (as have the opportunities to spread the message wider and wider.) The key words here are “reasonable limit”. If Disney wants to extoll the virtue of copyright “reform” or the teacher’s union wants to tell you why one candidate is worse for education, and so on… there’s no doubt money is necessary; and those groups are entitled to tell their point of view, and those who agree should be free to support them. It just shouldn’t be unlimited money. * * * From what I recall reading at the time the constitution was written, corporations existed but had a bad reputation. Shady businessmen in places like London used them to escape debts if their businesses failed. But, they had a legal standing. A corporation is no particular real person, but can do certain things in law just like a person - sign contracts, owe debts, hire people, own property. Once it has many of the same rights as a human person, how do you determine what is applicable or not? Can you libel a corp? It certainly has a reputation, which can be damaged by false allegations. And so on… ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legislation-that-would-render-citizens-united-moot/730369/29 "2015-09-10T14:50:38Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I find that questionable. Corporations barely existed in the 1860’s when these amendments were enacted. > > And the text of the amendments doesn’t reflect any apparent desire to extend personhood to corporations. There’s certainly nothing explicit in the text that says anything on the subject. What the text specifies “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” and that rights shall not be denied based on account of race or color which would be strange language to use if your intent was to extend rights to corporations. > > It seems to me that the text of these amendments was in accord with the mainstream interpretation - that they were directed towards black people in general and former slaves in particular. > > If, on the other hand, these amendments were intended to give rights to corporations, it took a long time for anyone to apply them. It wasn’t until 1886 that the Supreme Court declared that the 14th Amendment applied to corporations. If that had been one of the main intents of its enactors, you’d think they would have pushed for a quicker implementation. Corporate personhood at the Supreme Court goes back to Dartmouth vs Woodward in 1818. What the 14th amendment did was just extend the rights of equal protection to everyone which included corporations. In 1886 the Chief Justice said in the case you are referring to “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.” That is not him inventing the idea of applying the 14th amendment to corporations but indicating that all the justices thought it was settled law that corporations were persons under the 14th amendment and it would be a waste of the court’s time to argue otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2015, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legislation-that-would-render-citizens-united-moot/730369/30 "2015-09-10T14:56:32Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Corporate personhood at the Supreme Court goes back to Dartmouth vs Woodward in 1818. Rubbish. This is a modern spin on that case, which had nothing to do with corporate personhood. All it said was that the Contracts Clause applies to contracts entered into by private corporations as well as public ones. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legislation-that-would-render-citizens-united-moot/730369/31 "2015-09-11T03:01:52Z")
This is what Wikipedia says about the contract clause: > [@](#): > > The Framers of the Constitution added this clause in response to the fear that states would continue a practice that had been widespread under the Articles of Confederation—that of granting “private relief.” Legislatures would pass bills relieving particular persons (predictably, influential persons) of their obligation to pay their debts. It was this phenomenon that also prompted the framers to make bankruptcy law the province of the federal government. Presumably the Contract Clause was somewhat ambiguous - a quick reading suggests (like the “righ to bear arms applies only to being in militias” argument) that the contracts in question were only those involving the state. Supreme Court with Dartmouth said no, also applies to private contracts. As I said earlier, AFAIK corporations had for quite some time in common law many of the same rights as persons - to enter contracts, have standing in court, etc. This does not seem to be anything different. The acclaim of the decision regards the fact that it made it clear, the state could not simply stick its nose into a private contract to do whatever it wanted. That’s the bit that built confidence about the business side of corporations, that the state was not going to jump into a lucrative arrangement or refuse debts. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legislation-that-would-render-citizens-united-moot/730369/32 "2015-09-11T14:00:54Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Rubbish. This is a modern spin on that case, which had nothing to do with corporate personhood. All it said was that the Contracts Clause applies to contracts entered into by private corporations as well as public ones. What it said was just because people decide to come together in a corporation they don’t lose their rights. In 1818 it concerned the right not to have your contracts voided and in Citizens United it concerned the right to free speech. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2015, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legislation-that-would-render-citizens-united-moot/730369/33 "2015-09-12T00:42:30Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > What it said was just because people decide to come together in a corporation they don’t lose their rights. In 1818 it concerned the right not to have your contracts voided and in Citizens United it concerned the right to free speech. That was never the issue. Nobody suggested that people lose their rights by belonging to a corporation. And if it had been an issue, declaring a corporation has rights would have done nothing to address it. The issue of corporate personhood is whether a corporation has rights that exist independent of the rights of the people that comprise the corporation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-legislation-that-would-render-citizens-united-moot/730369.md?page=1)