# Supreme Court decision re: Campaign Finance Laws **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 21, 2010, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-decision-re-campaign-finance-laws/525883 "2010-01-21T19:37:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-decision-re-campaign-finance-laws/525883/21 "2010-01-22T06:55:43Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > It is a joke to declare corporations people. They don’t die. A corporation can be dissolved. But that’s not a necessary trait of personhood anyway. In fact, that they don’t die is evidence of their personhood, because they still can exist even if everyone who founded them is dead. A corporation is legally a separate entity from its members, and that makes it a person. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-decision-re-campaign-finance-laws/525883/22 "2010-01-22T07:13:00Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > … A corporation is legally a separate entity from its members, and that makes it a person. We are edging close to corporate existentialism here. That way lies madness. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-decision-re-campaign-finance-laws/525883/23 "2010-01-22T07:21:30Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > We are edging close to corporate existentialism here. That way lies madness. I don’t entirely understand what you mean. Could you explain? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-decision-re-campaign-finance-laws/525883/24 "2010-01-22T08:01:11Z")
Its at least half in jest, but with the humor beaten out of it, it remains true that pretending that an abstract entity, a legal contraption, is a _person_…well, its ridiculous, isn’t it? I’m a person, you’re a person, a corporation is not a person, nor is a replicant or a hoo-doo. The status of zombies, I grant, might be subject to refinement. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-decision-re-campaign-finance-laws/525883/25 "2010-01-22T13:40:57Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > 1. Can entities like corporations be “persons” under the law? That’s to say, do they have an independent legal identity independent of their members; can they be sued and sue, can they hold property, etc? > > 2. If corporations are persons, do they have the rights guaranteed to persons under the Constitution? Thanks for filling me in on the background regarding the 14th amendment. And, for the record, I’m happy to treat labor unions and corporations the same when it comes to campaign finance law. Corporations are artificial persons, and have some similar rights and some different rights. For example, the Court left in place the restrictions on corporations for direct campaign contributions – that seems pretty inconsistent right there. Similarly, corporations can’t invoke a right not to incriminate itself – a corporation, for example, couldn’t refuse to have management appear in a court case that has accused the corporation of wrongdoing, and it couldn’t refuse to pony up incriminating documents. If there are people accused as part of that investigation, they could invoke the fifth amendment to protect themselves, but not to protect the corporation. Of course, corporations also have a different tax code from natural people. Corporations can be bought and sold, people cannot. Corporations can live forever, people cannot. Corporations are restricted from certain kinds of assembly (anti-trust laws for example). I don’t know how a second amendment right for corporations would work. If the tax code can be different, surely other laws can be applied differently as well. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-decision-re-campaign-finance-laws/525883/26 "2010-01-22T15:55:22Z")
They could not pass legislation to accomplish what the corporations wanted. Personhood and all the other rulings that make corporations above the law have been achieved in court cases. They made a run around the people ,congressmen and senators. They had Bush stack the court with 3 ex-corporate attorneys and Scalias caddy, Thomas. They are young enough to keep this shit up for a long time. I fear for America. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-decision-re-campaign-finance-laws/525883/27 "2010-01-22T16:36:07Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > If the tax code can be different, surely other laws can be applied differently as well. Sure. And, I mean, it’s not inevitable that the court decide this the way they did, but it’s not crazy either. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-decision-re-campaign-finance-laws/525883/28 "2010-01-22T16:38:20Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Sure. And, I mean, it’s not inevitable that the court decide this the way they did, but it’s not crazy either. Actually, I never said it was crazy, just that it was an activist decision, decided by several justices who claim to be no such thing. This decision seems so clearly an activist decision to me. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-decision-re-campaign-finance-laws/525883/29 "2010-01-22T16:46:27Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > They had Bush stack the court with 3 ex-corporate attorneys and Scalias caddy, Thomas. I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. George H W Bush appointed 2 justices (Souter and Thomas), and George W Bush appointed 2 justices (Roberts and Alito), so neither Bush individually stacked the court with 3 justices. Also, none of the members of the current Supreme Court are really corporate attorneys. Roberts (appointed by Bush), Stevens (not appointed by Bush), Scalia (not appointed by Bush), Kennedy (not appointed by Bush), and Sotomayor (not appointed by Bush) were all in private practice for a while, and counted corporations among their clients. Is that what you mean? The only one who was ever in-house for a corporation was Ginsburg, who was counsel for the ACLU for a time. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-decision-re-campaign-finance-laws/525883/30 "2010-01-22T16:53:01Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Actually, I never said it was crazy, just that it was an activist decision, decided by several justices who claim to be no such thing. This decision seems so clearly an activist decision to me. I don’t think it is, though. Did you read the decision? It finds its roots in established precedence. Stare decisis is sort of the opposite of activism. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-decision-re-campaign-finance-laws/525883/31 "2010-01-22T17:10:54Z")
My understanding from legal beagles is that this decision overturns a previous decision. So _stark staring decisis_ doesn’t enter into it. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-decision-re-campaign-finance-laws/525883/32 "2010-01-22T17:44:24Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Unions have very little money and power compared to corporations. Unions have tremendous political influence and play a major role in every election. The payoff is clearly seen in policy decisions. The GM bailout gave unions preference over bond holders. The current health care bill waves taxes for expensive union policies. Their support has been an integral part of politics for at least the last 50 years. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-decision-re-campaign-finance-laws/525883/33 "2010-01-22T18:04:02Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Unions have tremendous political influence and play a major role in every election. The payoff is clearly seen in policy decisions. The GM bailout gave unions preference over bond holders. The current health care bill waves taxes for expensive union policies. > > Their support has been an integral part of politics for at least the last 50 years. Of course, that doesn’t contradict what he said _at all_. He posts enough absurdities that critical responses should at least be substantive, doncha think? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-decision-re-campaign-finance-laws/525883/34 "2010-01-22T18:37:34Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > My understanding from legal beagles is that this decision overturns a previous decision. So _stark staring decisis_ doesn’t enter into it. It reverses _Austin_, but _Austin_ itself reversed _Wisconsin Right to Life_ and _Bellotti_. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-decision-re-campaign-finance-laws/525883/35 "2010-01-22T18:58:17Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Well, no, that doesn’t make sense to me. Then, union members and shareholders have a double right – as individuals and through their union/company. It’s the same right. Expressing themselves through a group with other people sharing similar interests is a form of expressing themselves. By allowing people to express themselves in one form, but not in another potent form, their ability to express themselves is being infringed on. Suppose someone is in favor of drilling for oil in Alaska because it represents his interests as a shareholder of a major oil company, for example. By banning the corporation, it’s hampering the guy’s ability to express his viewpoint as a member of this preexisting group with joint interests. And so on with unions. I’ve not read the decision so forgive me if I’m wrong. But I would be shocked if the decision rested in any way on the notion that a corporation itself has free speech rights. That would be completely ludicrous. A corporation is treated as a person in financial matters. That has nothing whatsoever to do with rights. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-decision-re-campaign-finance-laws/525883/36 "2010-01-22T19:01:56Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’ve not read the decision so forgive me if I’m wrong. But I would be shocked if the decision rested in any way on the notion that a corporation itself has free speech rights. That would be completely ludicrous. Pretty sure that is precisely what it is saying. A corporation = person. They both have free speech rights (subject to the usual caveats of libel/slander/etc.) as distinct entities. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-decision-re-campaign-finance-laws/525883/37 "2010-01-22T19:13:11Z")
I think the language is confusing people. See one law professor’s [take on the issue](http://busmovie.typepad.com/ideoblog/2004/05/is_a_corporatio.html) (from 2004). ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-decision-re-campaign-finance-laws/525883/38 "2010-01-22T19:21:56Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’ve not read the decision so forgive me if I’m wrong. But I would be shocked if the decision rested in any way on the notion that a corporation itself has free speech rights. That would be completely ludicrous. I forgive you. The case was Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, and the Court ruled for Citizens United, not anyone who worked for Citizens United. They ruled that, as a corporate person, it has the constitutional right to free speech. (Although the Court left intact restrictions on corporate giving to candidates – I’m not sure how to figure that out.) It overturned two precedents, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce from 1990 and McConnell vs. Federal Election Commission, from 2003. In the 2003 case, O’Connor was in the majority upholding most of the McCain-Feingold law. Looks like when she was replaced, the new majority thought they could overturn the provisions of the law they didn’t like and actively seeked out this case – wait, did I say “actively”? Whoops! Not these guys, no sir. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-decision-re-campaign-finance-laws/525883/39 "2010-01-22T19:25:14Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I think the language is confusing people. See one law professor’s [take on the issue](http://busmovie.typepad.com/ideoblog/2004/05/is_a_corporatio.html) (from 2004). Not confusing to me. Corporations are treated as persons for some things (they can own property, enter into agreements, sue and be sued) but not for other things (they can’t vote, they have a different tax code). The question in this case is, should corporations be treated the same as natural persons for this part of election law? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-decision-re-campaign-finance-laws/525883/40 "2010-01-22T19:33:23Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Unions have tremendous political influence and play a major role in every election. The payoff is clearly seen in policy decisions. The GM bailout gave unions preference over bond holders. The current health care bill waves taxes for expensive union policies. > > Their support has been an integral part of politics for at least the last 50 years. That is so long ago. Union power and money has dwindled. The corporations however sicced 1500 lobbyists on the politicians to fight the health care bill. 1500 . Now that will fade into the good old days. They will put out fake documentaries, call them factual, and run them on TV over and over. Corporations have the money. They have the networks. They have the radio stations. There will not be equal access to the people. It will be very, ,very one sided. Even more than it is now. How can you fear unions? Do you hear pro-union stuff every day? The newspapers killed unions in their field long ago. All the TV stations are corporate owned conglomerates with tentacles in radio, tv, and newspapers across the country. This has become a mess .I am glad you can convince yourself that unions are the culprits in this. it is absurd. Of course foreign countries can become American corporations for a few bucks and spend unlimited amounts of money on our politicians. I am sure you have twisted that into a good thing too. We will have politics by money more than ever. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-decision-re-campaign-finance-laws/525883.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-decision-re-campaign-finance-laws/525883.md?page=3)