N.B.: Persons, not citizens, have constitutional rights under the Bill of Rights; it is not limited to citizens. Noncitizen aliens in the U.S. have the same rights to free speech, trial by jury, etc. Broadly speaking, the only legal rights citizens have and noncitizens have not are: (1) residence on U.S. soil (the state can execute you for crime under some circumstances but, if you’re a native citizen, cannot deport you; exile is a punishment unknown to American law); (2) the most essential forms of political participation, i.e., voting and holding public office (but aliens have the same right as citizens to make campaign speeches, canvas for votes, etc.).
And corporations are legally “persons” for many if not all purposes. E.g., a corporation cannot vote in elections; that privilege is limited to “natural persons” (who are also U.S. citizens and otherwise qualified). But a corporation can own property.
The question here is not whether an individual citizen/millionaire has a right to donate $100,000 to a political campaign that a corporation has not, but whether doing so is a form of constitutionally protected speech at all, regardless of the legal character of the donor. I contend it is not, as argued in post #8.
OK, I need someone to please help dispel my ignorance because I’m having a bit of trouble figuring something out here.
I am working on the assumption (and I know that I’m taking a risk on that) that the crux of the argument is that Congress does not have the authority to restrict the free speech of persons. Since a corporation is not a person, it was assumed (before this decision) that Congress did have the authority to restrict the “free speech” right of corporations (via campaign finance laws).
However, if that’s the case, I’m not sure I understand why a corporation is different from a non-profit entity (such as a labor union, religious institution*, advocacy group, etc.) in this regard. Why is everyone up in arms about the “rights” of corporations to spend money in an election, but no one said “boo” about groups from both sides of the aisle spending money in elections? Is it because one is for-profit and the other not? I’m not sure I see why that makes a difference? Why is it “bad” when a corporation spends money on politics, but it’s okay when the people of my town and I form a “help elect Joe Shmoe to the City Council” fund?
Please educate me.
Thanks,
Zev Steinhardt
Yes, I know religious organizations have restrictions relating to their tax-exempt status. However, assume that doesn’t come into play for the purposes of this question.
Details, details. Yes, it would be a challenge to determine what parties, groups, and candidates get equal access, but we do similar things already in determining who can appear on a ballot.
The more interesting question is, “what is the difference between an ordinary corporation and a media corporation?” In other words, if you restrict the speech of, say, Ford Motor Company, why isn’t NBC, a corporation wholly owned by General Electric, subject to the same restrictions?
Well yes. I kind of agree with all of that. Though I think we should be appealing to people’s self interest rather than just altruism. It’s not just that I am my brother’s keeper, it is also that my brother is my keeper, and that we are better off that way.
My problem is more this obsession with “flash” that has overtaken the left. If we compete against the right on TV we will lose, whether they have more money than us or whether we have the same amount of money. They are the shiny, glitzy ones. We win when we show our substance, and 30 second attack spots aren’t the way to do that. We win when people realize that the local labor and progressive organizations are there for them 365 days a year, not just in the two weeks before the primary.
When we walk away from those roots, we lose. New Labour and the New Democrats gave up on grass roots organization and tried to take on the right on the right’s own battlefield. While they had short term electoral success, it was at the cost of the soul of the movement.
A militant, active, labor and grass roots based movement can win against all the TV advertising the right can throw at it.
Because a corporation is not necessarily aligned with the needs of the populace. The corporation may not “live” in your town and nowhere near it but maybe they want a toxic waste dump sited there to take their mess and bury it cheap. Jane Doe is the gal who is in their pocket and will do that for them so the corporation dumps $1 million into her campaign. Additionally, Company-X has a media arm…they own (say) Fox News. Their talking heads will chatter up their guy and slam his opposition.
Take your pick. Maybe new zoning regulations or tax breaks (so you carry more of the burden).
Now, you and your neighbors pool your money for Joe Shmoe. Good luck.
Guess I shouldn’t be surprised that one has to dig to find mention in most of the press releases regarding this ruling today, that it tied to the case of the documentary that Hillary’s campaign was trying to keep from being released. Charging that it violated campaign financing laws because they viewed it as basically a political ad.
But what if the same shareholders of the corporation created another group called “The National Rifle Association” or “The American Civil Liberties Union” or “Elect Bill Smith the Town Dog Catcher Committee”. Functionally why should one group of people have indisputable free speech rights, but the exact same people when they form a group that is called a corporation gives up those rights?
Is anyone really arguing that you and I individually have rights, but the two of us together have no joint right of speech?
You seem to have missed my point–which was, quite simply, that the case wasn’t about the rights of A or B–but about the rights of C. I’m not (now at least) trying to engage with the merits of the decision (or move on to the interesting question of whether there is a problem with applying different sets of rules to different types of corporation)–all I am doing is trying to to point out that you seem to be confused about the question at issue in the case.
Precision matters here. A corporation isn’t just a “group”–a group is a group. It’s you and me standing in the street. Nobody is saying you and I cannot speak together in the street, or sign an editorial together, form a committee, lobby senators, or sit in town halls and hold meetings.
A corporation is not the same as “you and I getting together.” A corporation is a separate legal person. That is the whole point–the hallmark of a corporation is limited liability–that its owners are not responsible for the losses of the corporation, any more than I am responsible to pay off your losses.
A corporation is a creature of state law, created by the state. That is why you have to create a corporation by filing with the secretary of state, using a certain form. (furthermore, it is a totally positivist creation–there is no fundamental right to incorporate, and no obligation that states even have a way to create a corporation). Corporations have to follow a complicated body of rules about all kinds of things–stock, annual meetings, records, so on and so forth. (That is why most corporations are Delaware corporations–because Delaware corporate law is (so I’m told) much more favorable than (say) California corporate law. )
Corporations have to be formed and operate pursuant to a whole bunch of state laws that you and I are not subject to. Corporations may or may not have speech rights–that is not my point. My point is a corporation is just not the same thing as “you and I getting together”–so there is no force to the argument that a corporation has a right to speech simply as a result of the right to speech of the owner of the corporation.
This just isn’t what I said. Again, a corporation is not “the two of us together”–it is a distinct legal person. You and I have a joint right of speech–and can exercise it in a number of ways. But a corporation is not “the two of us together”—it is a third “person” that you and I have created under state law. It may have its own right to speech (so sez five justices)–but that is not a question of A or B’s right to speech.
That is a question of C’s right to speech–and there are many reasons why a corporation is not clearly a “person” in the same way you and I are. For example, you and I don’t have to hold shareholders’ meetings. We can be created without filing with the secretary of state. A judge can’t dissolve us if we run out of money.
If you don’t understand my argument, look at the case. The corporation was not trying to assert the speech rights of its owners–it was attempting to assert its own rights. Its owners were not suing. I don’t view that as a particularly complicated concept.
Besides the other flaws in your analogy already mentioned, you ignore the fact that this isn’t a matter of equal partners. This isn’t A + B; this is A taking the profits they gain from the labor of B, C, D…ZZ99, then using it to push an agenda that very likely is against the interest of the great majority of the people supporting it by their labor.
I’ve seen some denials (and explanations) so far in this thread - from folks who think this ruling and those like it are a good thing - why it doesn’t amount to “this ruling makes it easier for large corporations to buy their favored candidates positions in government and get anything they want from it.” I’d be interested in seeing more; after all, the whole “money is free speech” thing is not an insignificantly small belief, from what I’ve read.
On the evidence of the last thirty odd years when you look at how effective in influencing legislation all the grass roots movements put together, including the Christian movement have been and then look at how effective big business money has been I think that tells its own story. Right now you’ve got a stong grass roots movement on the left, the Daily Kos/Firedoglake people. Those guys spent the Democratic convention before the election penned into a free speech zone yelling at the various Democrat chieftans as they drove past to go to parties with all the corporate donors. You’ve got the teabaggers who’ll have as much influence over the GOP. And neither of these groups are going to work together to boost their influence from nonexistent to negligible. Until the current bunch of crooks (and I include both parties as making up this bunch) run the country into the ground to the extent that it’s pitchfork and torches time there’ll never be any effective grassroots movement. Even when it gets round to that they’ll probably just send the troops in, I just don’t see the power structure in America ever giving in. Today is just another milestone on the road to hell, another explicit sign that we’re completely fucked.
This ruling would be a lot more serious pre-Internet. Now, I know there are opinions that it’s been just as bought and paid for as any other media, but it at least has it in its nature to possibly change that.
I have to give conservative pundits one observation some have had: if the population in general weren’t (seen as) so apathetic and easily led, this wouldn’t be an issue in the first place.
I didn’t know before this there were states where unlimited corporate political spending is already allowed. What are things like in those states? Is there NO legal option to put in ANY limits for those states that want them?
It seems that conservatives simply do not believe that significant negative effects will come from this ruling, while liberals think the opposite. It’s not the first time this has struck me (“if Democrats want to [gain major support/get voted out in droves], they’ll get tough and ram through UHC!”), but it does make me wonder about that gap, and where it comes from - in a serious way. [This is probably a different topic entirely; maybe worthy of its own thread, but it popped in there…]
Because the conservatives want corruption. They want plutocracy. They have no problems at all with handing corporations any level of power. What the liberals see as a negative, the conservatives see as a positive.
I know (believe) you’ve opined before that (at least) conservative ideology overrides self-interest, but I don’t buy it, personally.
Anyway, I’ve started another thread specifically for this topic, so we can take it there if you like. The rest, which keys directly into the OP topic, can still stand, tho’.
This works under the assumption that giving money is “speech” in the exact same way that actually speaking is speech. Ford Motor Company is free to give speeches on its positions on various political issues (as far as I know), and NBC is still under the same donation restrictions as Ford.
How big of a change from pre-existing laws is this? How is this different than ‘soft money’ in the 1990s or 527s? It seems this is no different than soft money except now you can explicitly tell people who to vote for or against (rather than just imply it).
Why would there be no limits on what unions and corporations can donate if individuals are limited to $4600 to individual candidates and $23000 to parties?
When they say a corporation is an individual, do they have to consider who makes the decision in that corporation? Will donations of money be done the same in a sole proprietorship as they would be in a publicly traded company with a board of directors, CEO and president?
If a CEO decides to give a billion to candidates he likes, why is that a ‘corporate’ donation and not a donation from the ‘CEO’? If there are 40 people involved in a decision to donate money (the board of directors, president, CEO) they why aren’t they limited to the $4600 per person donation rule?
Are there legal rules about how money is donated via a corporation? Can one of the Walton Kids start a front corporation and donate 5 million? Why wouldn’t that be a violation of limits on personal donations?
What about donations from international corporations? Will those be regulated?
As Paul Simon said, “No matter who wins, you lose.” Try to think of a few federal politicians of any stripe not in the corporate pocket.
When a “liberal” administration is finds it politically expedient to allow big pharma to dictate unbid contracts to Medicare, it ought to give anyone pause for thought. And don’t get me started on the ACLU which just successfully supported SCOTUS in its decision to declare the US Treasury a corporate slush fund.
Yes, it would be a challenge to determine what parties, groups, and candidates get equal access, but we do similar things already in determining who can appear on a ballot.