# Thoughts on Citizens United v FEC
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-citizens-united-v-fec/549297
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [August 5, 2010, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-citizens-united-v-fec/549297 "2010-08-05T17:28:39Z")
**Posts on this page:** 9
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2010, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-citizens-united-v-fec/549297/1 "2010-08-05T17:28:39Z")
I’ve been considering the controversial \*Citizens United vs. Federal Election \*_Commission_ case, which decided in essence that corporations are persons that have the same 1st Amendment free speech rights as anybody else. The consensus seems to be that it will take a constitutional amendment to overturn it, which makes me wonder the following.
The 14th Amendment says in the first sentence of its first section that all persons “born or naturalized” in the US are citizens. “Persons” are then considered to include even man-made corporations under _Citizens United_. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment says that Congress has the power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.
If Congress has the power to make appropriate legislation under 14(5), doesn’t therefore it already have the power to trim back the Supreme Court’s conference of personhood upon corporations under 14, without having a separate constitutional amendment?
If on the other hand corporations are persons, then shouldn’t they be considered in apportionment under the 14th Amendment Section 2? Delaware might pick up a couple of congressmen, given how many corporations are incorporated there.
Taking the Scalia strict constructionist approach, doesn’t the 14th Amendment only apply to persons “born” or “naturalized”, and thus strictly speaking doesn’t this preclude artificial entities created by state statute. Corporations aren’t born or naturalized, they’re created by paperwork.
What say you experts? How off base am I?
Note: I looked for a thread discussing this case but couldn’t find a current one. If I overlooked it I have no objection to the Mods consolidating this one with it. Thanks.
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-citizens-united-v-fec/549297/2 "2010-08-05T18:53:09Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#):
>
> If Congress has the power to make appropriate legislation under 14(5), doesn’t therefore it already have the power to trim back the Supreme Court’s conference of personhood upon corporations under 14, without having a separate constitutional amendment?
Congress may pass quite broad legislation concerning corporations, but may not do so in a way injurious to their rights under the Constitution.
> [@zamboniracer](#):
>
> If on the other hand corporations are persons, then shouldn’t they be considered in apportionment under the 14th Amendment Section 2? Delaware might pick up a couple of congressmen, given how many corporations are incorporated there.
No - since corporations are made up of groups of people, often living in more than one place, this is a violation of the “one man one vote” principle.
> [@zamboniracer](#):
>
> Taking the Scalia strict constructionist approach, doesn’t the 14th Amendment only apply to persons “born” or “naturalized”, and thus strictly speaking doesn’t this preclude artificial entities created by state statute. Corporations aren’t born or naturalized, they’re created by paperwork.
Maybe - but since _Citizens United_ was largely decided on First Amendment grounds, and not Fourteenth, I’m not sure how that applies.
---
### Author:  [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2010, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-citizens-united-v-fec/549297/3 "2010-08-05T20:26:21Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Congress may pass quite broad legislation concerning corporations, but may not do so in a way injurious to their rights under the Constitution.
But certainly UNDER 14(5) Congress can make statues that can clarify and correct the Court’s decisions which appear to have wrongfully conferred personhood upon entities not sanctioned by the language of the 14th Amendment.
> [@](#):
>
> No - since corporations are made up of groups of people, often living in more than one place, this is a violation of the “one man one vote” principle.
True enough, but that only goes to show how ludicrous it is to confer personhood upon corporations.
> [@](#):
>
> Maybe - but since _Citizens United_ was largely decided on First Amendment grounds, and not Fourteenth, I’m not sure how that applies.
It was decided on the 1st Amendment free speech grounds, which one only reaches after deciding that corporations are “persons”, which they do not appear to be under the 14thA.
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2010, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-citizens-united-v-fec/549297/4 "2010-08-05T21:00:07Z")
Do you suppose corporations don’t enjoy First Amendment protections and rights? This website is owned by a corporation - one that also publishes several newspapers. The case law is pretty explicit concerning the First Amendment rights of corporations in that circumstance, right?
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2010, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-citizens-united-v-fec/549297/5 "2010-08-05T21:02:50Z")
From the bottom of this website:
> [@](#):
>
> “The Straight Dope by Cecil Adams” is a registered trademark of Creative Loafing Media, Inc. Contents of the Straight Dope Message Board and the Straight Dope Web site are copyright 1984-2009 by Creative Loafing Media, Inc. All rights reserved. By posting on this board you grant the Creative Loafing Media, Inc., and its successors and assigns a nonexclusive irrevocable right to re-use your posting in any manner it or they see fit without notice or compensation to you. No material contained in this site may be republished or reposted without express written consent of the Creative Loafing Media, Inc., except that message board users retain the right to republish or repost their own work.
---
### Author:  [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2010, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-citizens-united-v-fec/549297/6 "2010-08-05T21:20:46Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#):
>
> Do you suppose corporations don’t enjoy First Amendment protections and rights? This website is owned by a corporation - one that also publishes several newspapers. The case law is pretty explicit concerning the First Amendment rights of corporations in that circumstance, right?
Which is all dependent upon them being qualified persons in the first place, which really, they are not. Strictly speaking, corporations are mere creatures of the state they were chartered in, so-called “artificial people”, and have on the rights conferred by the incorporating statute. Certainly there is case law saying they have first amendment rights, but the foundation of those cases - that corporations are in fact qualified persons -appears dicey under the explicit language of the 14th Amendment (“born or naturalized”) , does it not?
---
### Author:  [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2010, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-citizens-united-v-fec/549297/7 "2010-08-05T21:55:12Z")
Possible nitpick: The first amendment does not, on its face, limit freedom of speech or of the press to “persons” of any sort.
---
### Author:  [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2010, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-citizens-united-v-fec/549297/8 "2010-08-05T22:03:28Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#):
>
> Possible nitpick: The first amendment does not, on its face, limit freedom of speech or of the press to “persons” of any sort.
This is the way I see it. The first amendment says:
[QUOTE= Bill of Rights]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[/QUOTE]
While I think the Citizens United ruling is horrible and a danger to our country, I don’t see anything in the first amendment saying that laws abridging the freedom of speech are only unconstitutional if they apply to people.
---
### Author:  [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)
#### Post date: [August 6, 2010, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-citizens-united-v-fec/549297/9 "2010-08-06T00:57:16Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Congress may pass quite broad legislation concerning corporations, but may not do so in a way injurious to their rights under the Constitution.
>
> But certainly UNDER 14(5) Congress can make statues that can clarify and correct the Court’s decisions which appear to have wrongfully conferred personhood upon entities not sanctioned by the language of the 14th Amendment.
With due respect, you are misrepresenting the nature of the Court’s decision. The purpose of the decision was not “confer personhood” on corporations. This assumption permeates your argument, but the assumption’s totally false.
As has already been pointed out, the Constitution, in any event, doesn’t limit free speech to “persons.” However, it’s simply not the case that this decision hinges upon declaring corporations to be something they previously were not. If you read the text of the decision, or any decent summation, that is not at all what the majority opinion was saying.