No but passing an amendment to the Constitution that defines that corporations are not people and money is not equal to free speech is a step in the right direction. Which Bernie Sanders from Vermont is trying to do as we speak.
-
Citizens United has absolutely nothing to do with corporations being people (not that they’ve ever been declared as such, but never mind). The CU decision does not mention corporate personhood once.
-
No court has ever said that money is speech. What the SCOTUS said, in a case 40 years ago, was that spending money on speech is part of the right of speech. And that makes perfect sense when you stop and think about it.
-
Sanders’ amendment would not do either of the things above. It would only affect “for-profit corporations,” not all corporations (except for media companies). It would allow the government to regulate the spending of campaigns. Everyone else - rich individuals, non-profits, Super PACs, etc. - could still spend all they want on speech, as I read the amendment.
-
You didn’t answer my question about foreign media. Should we ban foreign newspapers and broadcasts that talk about our politics and reach our voters?
Thanks for the info, I’m going to have to go back and read the decision again because my interpretation it defines a corporation as a person. Something that has been tried numerous times starting in 1819. But that just gave corporations the right to make contracts like people.
I’m not sure how I feel about your question yet. On one hand to pass a law restricting the flow of information is wrong in my opinion yet having foreign entities trying to influence our political process is also dangerous. I’m going to need some time to think on that. I’ll get back to you.
There have been decisions that said that corporations can be treated like persons in certain limited senses. But Citizen’s United is not one of them. Citizen’s United simply said that the source of speech is not relevant, in other words, speech is protected whether it comes from a person or not.
I’m shocked that you even have to think about it.
The idea that you are open to blatant violation of the First Amendment in order to “protect” the people from influential speech that you think is “dangerous,” like they do in Cuba or North Korea, is shocking. This is a no-brainer. It was supposed to be obvious. It was a rhetorical question, not one that you consider first.
Wow.
Thanks to all for confirming what I already suspected.
Well for me it’s a complex question and I’d like to think on it some more.
The reason it is complex for me is because you framed it in regards to “political” speech, not “all” speech.
It’s not that I’m open to a blatant violation of the First Amendment, I’m uncomfortable with the notion that a foreign entity could be protected by the First Amendment for what would essentially be propaganda. I wouldn’t go as far as to ban it but it damn well better have something that designates its origin.
I recall reading about the London affair last month. I got the very strong impression the donors were American ex-pats.
It also stands to reason that if Romney really did raise funds from foreigners, the administration would be all over it.
As much as I’d enjoy seeing Mitt the Twit embarrassed, I think he should slide on this one.
That said, whenever the birther issue is brought up, I think this issue should be the response. (For fun purposes only)
One of the first mentions of corporate personhood. Also a little disingenuous to refer to the Citizens United decision when it was in fact the prosecution that brought up the 14th amendment as part of their argument.
Yes, so? Doesn’t change what I said. No court has ever said that a corporation is a person in every way. That’s silly and everyone knows it.
The Court did not accept that argument though.
Again, it’s truly scary that you would even entertain the notion of being “uncomfortable” with speech or media at all. That you use the term “propaganda” is even more scary.
All media, including foreign media, are protected by the First Amendment. The people do not need the government to protect them from “propaganda” or any other speech or media. That is the bedrock principle of the First Amendment.
And no, it does not need to designate its origin either. Aside from the fact that that’s also a violation of the First Amendment, what the hell does that accomplish? Is the argument presented somehow different because of its source? If an American says “vote for Obama because he’s pro-choice” or whatever, is that somehow different if somebody from Argentina says it?
Political speech enjoys the HIGHEST level of protection. That should make it simpler, not more complex.
It’s also a strawman, since that wasn’t the claim President T Toilet made.
They didn’t refer to it in their decision, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t accepted as a given.
The government plays one of the largest roles in propaganda (using its historical definition). Jay Carney is its current disseminator.
A person from Argentina posting on a message board that they like Obama is one thing. A billion dollar foreign entity pumping in millions of dollars anonymously through a Super-PAC to support a candidate or policy that benefits them is something that SHOULD require some sort of disclosure. To be clear I’m not advocating censorship of information merely the disclosure of it’s origins.This is why I supported the Disclose Act and continue to do so and why I also support Bernie Sander’s Amendment.
As far as propaganda is concerned, if you don’t think it’s a problem in the USA please explain to me how at one time here in the States close to 50% of the population at one time believed that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Propaganda is very much alive and well here and has been thriving for years. America has perfected it to a science
And on a personal note, I know you think you were being clever when you asked what you thought was a rhetorical question but the reality is you asked a very complex question given the paradigm of todays world regarding the accessibility of information. If the world were black and white, yes it’s a no-brainer. The world however is also made up of many shades of grey. And rainbows.
Uh huh. Sure. Just let me be the first to say . . .
THIS IS JUST THE BREAK THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN HAS BEEN WAITING FOR!
ETA: Well shoot. Looking at the Elections forum, it looks like someone has already said it. And with a straight face, no less.
Let’s let him speak for himself.
Truly lame response.
They gave their rationale. It did not include corporate personhood. It did include an alternative rationale. A change in law or the Constitution declaring that corporations aren’t people wouldn’t affect Citizens United at all. There is no more to be said. Corporate personhood is irrelevant to this conversation.
So what?
Okay.
That’s good enough for me.
I have a problem with disclosure too (see NAACP v. Alabama to understand why) but I’m overjoyed that you support the First Amendment right of speech.
Then why all the slippery slope arguments against reneging corporate personhood? For one thing, individuals wronged would have to appeal to the Supreme Court, rather than “Citizens United” as an entity.
Fine, but you introduced a strawman of his position in response to my post.
I for the life of me can’t understand why anyone would be against striking down the notion of “corporate personhood”.