Well, obviously, the wrong people won.
Criticizing a political candidate is equivalent to killing innocent people?
Citizens United hardly qualifies as a very wealthy corporation. It was (and I’d assume still is) a not-for-profit organization that basically exists to produce political films (conservative ones, which I suspect is a large part of the objection here.) Saying people can’t make films with a political message - and this is “people,” in the sense that Citizens United is backed by real live people that want them to do what they do - is about as blatant an interruption of free expression as I’ve ever seen defended on the SDMB.
But this happens in any organization, even political ones. I might join the NRA, but disagree with them on say, background checks at gun shows. And here they are using my dues to fight the gun show law that I agree with. I can either quit or attempt to take over the organization.
Same way with the ACLU. They strongly support Citizens United, yet most of its critics are probably in their membership.
But people will still join the NRA or the ACLU because they generally represent their respective interests on MOST things. If you had a rule that said an organization can’t promote an issue unless on a unanimous vote of its membership, then you stifle any effort of people to meaningfully petition or assemble.
In other words, you join the NRA or the ACLU, or buy stock in a corporation with full knowledge that you can be outvoted on things and that the organization may do some things that you don’t like. You join anyways because the things they do that you like outweigh those small things. Otherwise, you can withdraw.
I’m not seeing the problem that calls for a blanket ban on group speech.
I think the whole “corporate personhood” thing is a red herring to the whole question of Citizens United, and it’s leading the conversation in a bad direction when you get to people basically saying that in order for people to form a cooperative organization, they have to give up their right to free speech.
If I were in charge of fixing this problem, i’d write the amendment something like this;
“No person, except a citizen of the United States or a group of citizens comprising an enterprise not operated for profit, shall gift, grant, donate, or lend any money or goods to any person seeking an office under the United States or the several states, or to any promotional agency working on his or her behalf, nor themselves operate as a promotional agent thereunto; nor shall they engage the press to advocate for or against any person seeking office, or any act of legislation, the juduciary, or referendum being considered by the United States or the several states; nor petition any elected official, through a hired intermediary.”
See bolded. Can a “press” corporation do that? If it can’t, you just disallowed any press praising or criticizing a candidate. If it can, any corporation will just become “press”. Publish a newsletter or something.
Also - if any non-profits do any kind of electioneering, you just eliminated any possibility for those non-profits to get any money from any corporations, for any purpose. Which effectively disallows electioneering by non-profits as well.
I don’t see why that need follow from a belief that corporations need civil-rights protection. Consider some examples of what might happen if corporations did not have such protection:
First Amendment: The government could pass laws muzzling any television network or film studio or magazine if it was incorporated (and the vast majority are) by rationalizing that no individual’s right to free speech was being abridged. The individuals who work for these corporations are still free to express themselves; they’ll just be denied the corporation’s resources to do so. This website, overseen by Creative Loafing, inc., could be shut down, in theory, or at least the corporation could be blocked from lending its financial and technical support for it.
Second Amendment: Individual could bear arms, but in theory, the government could seize the inventory of the Smith & Wesson corporation, and otherwise interfere with any corporation that manufactures, transports or sells firearms. Individuals remain free to make their own guns, if they like.
Third Amendment: The government could, in theory, seize corporate property to serve military needs. A base is overcrowded, but it’s next to a Holiday Inn. No problem. 500 free rooms, please.
Fourth Amendment: Corporate property casually searched, seized.
Fifth Amendment: Corporate property seized without compensation under eminent domain.
I’ve no problem recognizing that a corporation falls into a category of “person” that has some rights (i.e. the protections from the above-listed government actions) but not others (i.e. voting). I reject the all-or-nothing view.
Ironically, this would make no change at all to the Citizens United case.
If similar numerical indicators of popular sentiment existed against the legalization of same-sex marriage, would you say they should be equally persuasive?
I ask because in the many discussions of same-sex marriage on these boards, a consistent theme from many in favor of SSM has been that there were certain things that didn’t get decided by popular appeal. So I’m wondering how we are to know that this particular issue falls into the category of being decided by democratic process.
This all kind of assumes some sort of corporate immutability. Leaving aside the question of whether incorporation is a fundamental necessity in a global economy, yada yada, what stops Smith & Wesson from reverting to some other non-incorporated business structure?
Several reasons:
First, because there are a million different shareholders, or more, in many cases. Either you have to do a buyout, which is difficult and not that common, or take the company private, which often screws over shareholders. It will also give the company a harder time competing against foreign corporations.
Second, because the only alternatives you would leave are sole proprieterships and partnerships, and both have practical limits. That’s why they’re not popular for big businesses. That’s basically the only non-corporate forms of organization, since you would be cutting out all corporations.
Third, you would destroy the rights of customers and clients in many cases. The company would no longer be obligated to live up to its contracts, because partners or owners can’t sign every contract - and they won’t, because it makes them personally liable.
So, sure, they could do this if shareholders wanted to destroy their business and make themselves liable for all debts. I ain’t gonna take any risks under those circumstances.
Perhaps giving up freedom of speech is the price a business entity should pay to insulate its owners from liability.