Notwithstanding the fact that the recent SCOTUS ruling is freely available to be read (see Full Text: Citizens United v. FEC), lies continue to be published about it. Alarmists akin to the Global Warming Religionists continue to proclaim the Death of the Republic, with 20-foot rises in seas of Corporate Cash drowning out the intrepid People's seaside political cities. The glaciers of Liberty are melting! The Political Earth has a FEVER!
WE MUST ACT NOW, before it is TOO LATE!
Balderdash.
To those proclaiming Doom, I say: SHOW US THE EVIDENCE.
1. Quote the part(s) of the ruling that create "corporations as persons" and the evidence that they will spend "unlimited amounts to influence political outcomes" so elections will be command-and-control by Citibank et al.
2. Corporations (and trade groups, and unions, and everyone else) had 213 years of such freedom prior to McCain-Feingold: SHOW US the evidence that the elections of 2004, 2006, and 2008 were so much better than all those that came before.
Campaign finance: a 'reform' wisely struck down
By George F. Will
Thursday, January 28, 2010; A25
Last week's Supreme Court decision that substantially deregulates political speech has provoked an edifying torrent of hyperbole. Critics' dismay reveals their conviction: Speech about the elections that determine the government's composition is not a constitutional right but a mere privilege that exists at the sufferance of government.
How regulated did political speech become during the decades when the court was derelict in its duty to actively defend the Constitution? The Federal Election Commission, which administers the law that rations the quantity and regulates the content and timing of political speech, identifies 33 types of political speech and 71 kinds of "speakers." The underlying statute and FEC regulations cover more than 800 pages, and FEC explanations of its decisions have filled more than 1,200 pages. The First Amendment requires 10 words for a sufficient stipulation: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."
Extending the logic of a 1976 decision, the court has now held that the dissemination of political speech requires money, so restricting money restricts speech. Bringing law into conformity with this 1976 precedent, the court has struck down only federal and state laws that forbidindependent expenditures (those not made directly to, or coordinated with, candidates' campaigns) by corporations and labor unions. Under the censorship regime the court has overturned, corporations were even forbidden to send political communications to all of their employees.
The New York Times calls the court's decision, which enables political advocacy by (other) corporations, a "blow to democracy." The Times, a corporate entity, can engage in political advocacy because Congress has granted "media corporations" an exemption from limits.
The Washington Post, also exempt, says the court's decision, which overturned a previous ruling upholding restrictions on spending for political speech, shows insufficient "respect for precedent." Does The Post think the court incorrectly overturned precedents that upheld racial segregation and warrantless wiretaps? Are the only sacrosanct precedents those that abridge (others') right to speak?
Alarmists say the court's ruling will mean torrential spending by large for-profit corporations. Anna Burger, secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union -- it has spent $20 million on politics in the past five election cycles -- says a corporation will "funnel their shareholders' money straight to a campaign's coffers." Wrong. Corporate contributions to candidates' campaigns remain proscribed.
Cleta Mitchell, Washington's preeminent campaign finance attorney, rightly says that few for-profit corporations will jeopardize their commercial interests by engaging in partisan politics: Republicans, Democrats and independents buy Microsoft's and Pepsi's products. If for-profit corporations do plunge into politics, disclosure of their spending will enable voters to draw appropriate conclusions. Of course, political speech regulations radiate distrust of voters' abilities to assess unfettered political advocacy.
Mitchell says the court's decision primarily liberates nonprofit advocacy groups, such as the Sierra Club, which the FEC fined $28,000 in 2006. The club's sin was to distribute pamphlets in Florida contrasting the environmental views of the presidential and senatorial candidates, to the intended advantage of Democrats. FEC censors deemed this an illegal corporate contribution.
Barack "Pitchfork" Obama, in his post-Massachusetts populist mode, called the court's ruling a victory for, among others, "big oil" and "Wall Street banks." ButOpenSecrets.org reports that in 2008 lawyers gave more money than either of them, and gave 78 percent of the donations to Democrats, who also received 64 percent of contributions from the financial sector.
Even if it were Congress's business to decide that there is "too much" money in politics, that decision would be odd: In the 2007-08 election cycle, spending in all campaigns, for city council members up to the presidency, was $8.6 billion, about what Americans spend annually on potato chips.
Critics say raising such sums requires too much of candidates' time. Well, then, let candidates receive unlimited -- but fully disclosed -- contributions, and trust voters to make appropriate inferences about the candidates.
Undaunted, advocates of government control of political speech want Congress to enact public financing of congressional campaigns, and to ban individuals from participating in politics through contributions. Fortunately, this idea -- "food stamps for politicians" -- is wildly unpopular. Public financing of presidential campaigns has collapsed. Obama disdained it in 2008; the public always has. Voluntary, cost-free participation, using the checkoff on the income tax form, peaked at a paltry 28.7 percent in 1980 and by 2008 had sagged to 8.3 percent.
This is redundant proof that the premise of campaign finance "reform" is false. The premise is that easily befuddled Americans need to be swaddled in regulations of political speech.
47 Comments
Anonymous
Saw this column a couple of days back. Good writing, as usual, from the (last?) master of the English language.
Don't care much for Will's politics, generally, but he's dead right about how wrong McLame/Findgold-for-Incumbents was. If ever a law needed Death by Unconstitutionality, that was it.
crazycanuck
This is a sad day for America. I always thought George Will was one of the most rational and sensible political analysts on the US political scence. He is unfortunately wrong on this point, regardless of academic argument or his consitututional law argument. I think to the average person (and the Founding Fathers) "democracy:" means at the very minimum "election by the people - all the people - and only the people". His argument for corporations (or unions) to be able to vote (or buy votes) signals his exit from the relevent political arena.
Again TLaCour, as you so elegantly demonstrate, you may master the minuta of consititutional law, and maybe even the English language, but as with George Will, you severely lack the common sense of the average Amercian.
Kill Bill
Stephen
Unfortunately, George Will is wrong. Screaming that anyone who disagrees is a lier will hardly change that fact. Such accusations are suspect in and of themselves, whether they are made by Global Warming Eco-Fascists, or Neo-con corporate-statists. A willingness to engage is debate on the assumption of honest disagreement is far more credible.
I've read many analysis of this case. I also have a little familiarity with campaign law, having been responsible for forming and/or running a number of (c)(3)s, a (c)(4) and a PAC. I believe that Obama is correct on this one (as much it pains me to say it). [I also think it was offensive in the extreme, and potentially even dangerous, for him to have brought the subject up in the SOTU. Was it a bow shot from the Imperial Presidency? A veiled threat? Or a slap on the back for a job well done, disguised to reassure the masses of Obama's fading progressive credentials?]
In every single analysis I've read on the subject so far, the writers have failed to adequately address to critical issues, and the interaction of those issues, including the following:
1.) the (unconstitutional, in my opinion) expansion of the rights of corporations as persons and how it dilutes (through political inflation) the value and power of real people, both in the economy and in politics (corporations are not people, no matter how often they repeat this lie, it does not make it true); and,
2.) the FEC's current rule making, in a great many instances fails to adequate address (or even address at all) this expansion of the definition of persons to include corporations, and,
3.) that corporations are creatures of the state to begin with, and are therefore beholding to state interests; and,
4.) that corporations (and unions) are, by definition, collectivist institutions, that are designed to disadvantage the individuals they compete with. All those who profess a fealty to the rights of the individual should abhor them. The rights of the many, in no case, should outweigh the rights of the one. The political voice of the many should likewise not be granted greater volume than the voice of the one; and,
5.) Steven's raised many important issues in his dissent. He is correct (again, I don't like having to admit it) that this ruling does lay the foundation, sets the precedent, for extending the political rights of corporate "persons" even further. ("Under the majority's view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.") http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/01/analysis-the-personhood-of-corporations/
Yes, there is the possibility that the congress and the FEC will be able to address these issues within the framework of Citizens United, but this does not negate the current criticism of the ruling that by itself does open wide the floodgates to corporate (and yes, even foreign corporate) independent spending (especially at the state level). In fact, it has already started. Last night, we received a robo-call from a group of pharmaceutical companies asking us to contact Washington to to support their position on healthcare. This did not appear to come from a person, or a group of person, but from a group of corporations, spending the profits earning under the protection of corporate privileges. (And yes, they've jumped the gun, since the ruling has not gone into effect, but they are probably guessing that they can get away with it since there are no rules, let alone penalties, written to address this situation.)
This is not what the Founders intended. They intended a representative government of the people. The people did not include abstract entities that could be created with a few signatures and filing a fee paid by anyone, or any group, wealthy enough to afford it. They intended for people, for individuals, to have rights, not for entities to have rights. They most certain did not intend for anyone, or any group wealthy enough to afford it to be able to to create a second, or third, or an infinite number of "false" people with equal political voices, to multiply their role in the system.
This was not a victory for free speech, it was a victory for crony capitalism, for corporate-statism.
Sorry, Tom, looks like we'll have to disagree on this one. In my opinion, this was possibly the worst, at least one of the worst, Supreme Court decision(s) since Dred Scott.
mulligan
Do not know that much about George Will but one thing for sure, the Supreme Court made the right and proper decision. Those who think otherwise, I do not like your speech and what you say should be un-Constitutional.
Freesmith
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.
It seems to me from the above that I have both the right of freedom of speech AND to assemble peaceably with like-minded citizens. (The purpose of that assemblage is not limited in any way, so long as it is peaceful; therefore, it can certainly include for purposes of commerce.)
Nothing in the above says that I forfeit one right - speech - if I exercise another - assembly. And if I assemble with other like-minded citizens, but cannot speak in an "assembled" voice, then the right of free assembly is abridged by having its purposes limited by the government.
And not even by the whole government, but by an usurping agency of the Executive branch (the FEC) which, in violation of the separation of powers, can regulate (legislate), enforce (execute) and decide (adjudicate) its own authority.
States charter corporations to regulate their commercial activities, not their rights of speech, religion, assembly or petition. If the state can proscribe a corporation's right of free speech, or its ability to petition the government, why can't the chartering state tell that corporation where and when it is allowed to assemble, or what can be on the agenda of its annual meetings, or whether the commercial assembly can open its meetings with an invocation?
Thanks, TLC, for posting Will's article and making your challenge.
SanDiegoGuy
Excellent post, TL. Many thanks.
For those of you who've become blue-in-the-face debating this issue, might I suggest you give you're overworked brains a break and turn to your gut instead and consider:
Barack Obama, Chucky Schumer, Bwarny Fwank, Nasty Pelosi, Keith Obermann et al HATE this Supreme Court decision.
What does that tell you? What does that indicate?
Anybody hooooome?
ragman
I don't much give a hoot who buys 'em. They pay absolutely NO attention to the will of the constituents. They simply do whatever they want to.
rennerstump
G. W. works for and is paid by a corporation! He is a person while his paymaster is a legal abstraction owned by numerous individuals foreign and domestic. The fiat money boys own and control most of the corporations of the world. Their fiat money empire has bubbled up to $600 trillions+ opaque obligations = they Blew up the federal reserve plus all fiat money banks two years ago. They are offloading their ponzi scheme losses onto future American taxpayers as rapidly as possible. The Court is trying to save the fiat money boys by making it legal to buy all future elections. If a chinese owned U.S> corporation gave me $2billions in funds I would be president via A CORNY Rock star campaign too!! My platform would "I'll give you PLIABLE CHANGE and a clean, no cheating OLD DEAL!! RS
neocon
Will is a dumbass pansy who thinks he is an intellectual. He uses big words that he doesn't understand and is an insult to neoconservatives everywhere. He is bought by the Washington Post and is a fucking lightweight. Newt Gingrich has forgotten more of the constitution than Will will ever know. Hell, I have too. He happens to be right about this article, but he did have a 50-50 shot. If you ever want to have a CLASSIC example of form over substance in politics, look at anything Will has ever written or said. The fucker is transparent.
StuckInNJ
TLa, this is a very weak article by George Will. You say, “SHOW US THE EVIDENCE”. Well, what evidence does Will actually show that this is a good ruling? All he does is give his opinion – with zero evidence. Maybe he was under a deadline and didn’t have any time to do REAL reporting.
TLa said, “1. Quote the part(s) of the ruling that create "corporations as persons"”
While they don’t say that exactly – and you know they don’t – they do come pretty close on page 33; (emphasis mine)
“Corporations and other associations, LIKE INDIVIDUALS, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster””
TLa said, show “the evidence that they will spend "unlimited amounts to influence political outcomes"
Right back at you. How about YOU prove corporations WON’T spend unlimited amounts of money to influence political outcomes. (Neither you nor I can prove a future event.) However, your position doesn’t make any logical sense. Let’s see here; Corporations spend hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbyists and lawyers to directly influence laws in the corporation's favor …. and now that they have the Golden Goose handed to them on a platter .. they’ll just turn away from doing the next logical thing?? That is, instead of merely trying to influence politicians … get the right one (theirs!) in office in the first place! THAT's what WILL happen ... although I can't prove it.
Lastly, Corporations are made up of people. Right? Well … people ALREADY have 1st Amendment rights. People that work and support their own corporation’s political views are thus represented TWICE. And, that is a crock of shit.
ReverseEngineer
We all think Free Speech is GOOD here on TBP, and everybody should have a right to Free Speech, including the Corporations in this latest interpretation of Constitutional Law.
If Speech truly was FREE, you might be able to make a case for this argument by George Will. However, in our society speech is hardly free, in fact it costs a LOT of money to get your voice heard. Can I buy a 1 minute TV commercial on NBC? Hell no, 1 minute of air time on NBC costs more than I made in the last 5 years I am sure.
Free Speech? Get REAL. If somebody has access to LRAD that will simply blow your eardrums out delivering a message and all you have is a paper megaphone, your message won’t ever even be heard. Real Free Speech in a large society which uses electronic media to promulgate such speech depends on everyone having equl access to such media, but they DON’T, because its NOT FREE to put a commercial on NBC. It cost a LOT of money to do that, which only very powerful moneyed interests have to spend. If you support this idea, you support the moneyed interests.
Go back to the time of our Founding Fathers. If Thomas Paine had to pay $100/minute on NBC to get his ideas heard, would he have been able to pay that? Unlikely. In those times, the means of disseminating information was not so centrally controlled as it is now. Sure I can still write here on TBP, but how many people actually READ anymore? The reality is that the information dispersal medium is through TV for most of the population, so as long as it is only available to the moneyed interests, that is ALL most people hear. You might WISH it wasn’t so, but it IS so.
Speech in this society is not FREE. It is bought and paid for by moneyed interests. They OWN the media, and as Marshall McLuhan wrote, the Medium IS the Message. What we all write here on TB is for the most part philosophical masturbation, its not heard by anyone above the LRAD of NBC, bought and paid for Speech by corporations. You are not supporting Free Speech when you accept such a ruling as valid. You are accepting PAID Speech available only to the moneyed interests, and as such you are a facilitator of Fascism.
RE
TLaCour
@Stephen:
Your long post needs a full response. I will post part of my systematic reply here, the rest in the main.
A. Making unsupported accusations like "Screaming that anyone who disagrees is a lier [sic: liar]" hardly constitutes "willingness to engage is [sic: in] debate on the assumption of honest disagreement." The only screaming in evidence is that perpetrated by the Doomists who lie about what is in this SCOTUS ruling and the dire consequences certain to follow. Your complaint is properly directed to those doing the screaming, no?
That said, your posts raises eleven points (5 of them kindly numbered for us, thank you) that merit discussion. Unfortunately, ten of them (all but #5 of the numbered group) have nothing to do with the actual ruling, and #5 itself is only tangential. You use a quote taken out of context from a blog, not the ruling, and that blog quote is taken from Stevens' fantastic dissent, not the ruling, and is itself quite tangential and Doomist. The point of my post, first and foremost, was that the vast majority of "analyses" printed / posted on the topic of this ruling suffer the same fault.
That you have read many such analyses and are familiar with some of the campaign laws is a fine beginning, but hardly substitute for actually reading the ruling in question. You have made a number of characterizations of the ruling, most of them outright false, none of them based on the ruling itself. Please base future comments on the actual ruling and the actual campaign laws, not merely on faulty "analyses" written by others.
My thoughts on the other points you made:
B. "I believe that Obama is correct on this one (as much it pains me to say it). [I also think it was offensive in the extreme, and potentially even dangerous, for him to have brought the subject up in the SOTU. ..."
Disagree with the first statement, agree with the second, and the balance of your paragraph "Was it a bow shot from the Imperial Presidency? A veiled threat? Or a slap on the back for a job well done, disguised to reassure the masses of Obama's fading progressive credentials?]" is worthy of discussion in its own right.
C. "In every single analysis I've read on the subject so far, the writers have failed to adequately address to critical issues, and the interaction of those issues, including the following..."
All of the "following" (your points #1–5) are not based in the actual ruling. They are important issues, but it is incorrect to assert that the ruling raises them, so it is unsurprising if few or no analyses of the ruling discuss them. If you believe my response is incorrect, then quote the part(s) of the ruling that pertain.
#1. "the (unconstitutional, in my opinion) expansion of the rights of corporations as persons and how it dilutes (through political inflation) the value and power of real people, both in the economy and in politics (corporations are not people, no matter how often they repeat this lie, it does not make it true)."
a. The term "expansion of the rights of corporations as persons" is incorrect here.
1. "Expansion" denotes a new enlargement, not a return to a status ante some new restriction. Corporations (indeed, ALL associations of individuals, incorporated or not) were free to speak politically (in terms of McCain-Feingold, to "electioneer") in Federal elections from this country's inception to 2002. The quite recent restriction of the BRCA was removed. State laws instituting similar new restrictions dating from the 1990 "Austin" case over Michigan law were also struck down. The proper term here is "restoration of rights," not "expansion."
2. Corporations have been deemed "persons" for purposes of law for >120 years, which is in fact neither here nor there. Even if the ruling relied on the "persons" analogy, it would NOT be new.
In fact, though, the ruling does NOT grant "new rights to corporations as persons" since the ruling does NOT base its reasoning on the "corporation as person" analogy. The ruling bases its reasoning on the concept that ALL associations of "real people" retain the right to speech free of government abridgement: the right of individuals to speak free of Government control is not forfeited when done in association with other individuals. Unions, for example, are not considered "persons" under law, but were banned from speaking the same as corporations under the BRCA.
This last point is critical to all discussion of the ruling itself and of the topic of "free speech" generally. NOWHERE in the actual ruling does the "personhood" of corporations enter into the reasoning, and it is a major disinformational distraction to focus on the "personhood of corporations." What is CENTRAL to the ruling and directly addresses your points #3 and #4 is the notion that "collective speech" – i.e. speech by groups of individuals – is just as protected from government abridgement as is that of the individuals comprising such groups.
#3 "that corporations are creatures of the state to begin with, and are therefore beholding to state interests..."
#4 "that corporations (and unions) are, by definition, collectivist institutions, that are designed to disadvantage the individuals they compete with. All those who profess a fealty to the rights of the individual should abhor them. The rights of the many, in no case, should outweigh the rights of the one. The political voice of the many should likewise not be granted greater volume than the voice of the one..."
It is imperative to proceed from what the ruling actually says, not from inventions.
“Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. ...Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion.” pp 20–25.
(c) This Court is confronted with conflicting lines of precedent: a pre-Austin line forbidding speech restrictions based on the speaker’s corporate identity and a post-Austin line permitting them. Neither Austin’s antidistortion rationale nor the Government’s other justifications support §441b’s restrictions. Pp. 32–47.
(1) The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in politicalspeech, but Austin’s antidistortion rationale would permit the Government to ban political speech because the speaker is an association with a corporate form. …Distinguishing wealthy individuals from corporations based on the latter’s special advantages of, e.g., limited liability, does not suffice to allow laws prohibiting speech. It is irrelevant for First Amendment purposes that corporate funds may “have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” Austin, supra, at 660. All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech. Under the antidistortion rationale, Congress could also ban political speech of media corporations. Although currently exempt from §441b, they accumulate wealth with the help of their corporate form, may have aggregations of wealth,and may express views “hav[ing] little or no correlation to the public’ssupport” for those views. Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment, and there is no support for the view that the Amendment’s original meaning would permit suppressing media corporations’ political speech. Austin interferes with the “open marketplace”of ideas protected by the First Amendment.
The right to speak freely does NOT proceed from the 1st Amendment, and is in no way a grant of right from government or by the Constitution. The 1st Amendment reiterates an already-extant right, and forbids Government from abridging it. That right is not forfeited by individuals when exercised in association with other individuals, whether the association be corporate, union, or other, whether the association be a "creature of the state" or not.
The right to speak freely, to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government, are rights retained not just by the lonely pamphleteer or other individual, but by any and all associations of citizens. Such rights are NOT to be understood as grants from their State charter and subject to revision or revocation at the pleasure of the State.
Finally, your idea that "group" speech should not be allowed, or at least not allowed to overshadow "individual" speech, is inconsistent with a democratic republic.
If we are not allowed to pool resources, just how do you think individuals' speech will be disseminated? How many non-rich people can afford to buy TV ads, publish books or pamphlets, or run websites by themselves, with neither money nor time contributed by other individuals? Are you laboring under the false impression that Thomas Paine or other patriots of that era spoke "as individuals"? Hardly, a great number of people contributed to getting "Common Sense" published and distributed.
Shall the Libertarian Party, or any other political party, be barred from speech because they are "collectivist institutions, that are designed to disadvantage the individuals they compete with"?
Arius
Many small groups that were not allowed to distribute or promote their material were in the Supreme Court case against McCain/Feingold. It is easy to demonize corporations while overlooking the power of the labor unions, NGOs, etc. The facilitators of Fascism are those that throw accusations of others facilitating Fascism.
mpadi2
x
TLaCour
@Stephen,
The second part of my response will probably be shorter than the first. To recap, your points A–C and #1, 3 and 4 were addressed in my first response. Herewith my answer to your points #2, 5, and D–F.
#2: "the FEC's current rule making, in a great many instances fails to adequate address (or even address at all) this expansion of the definition of persons to include corporations.."
The FEC had 30 years (from 1971–2002) to make rules regarding the then-extant (from 1776–2002) and now-restored rights of corporations and unions to freely speak during Federal elections in the form of "electioneering." No definition of corporation as persons was expanded by this ruling, but the rights of those groups to speak has been restored to what it was during the restrictions on Federal elections (2002–2009, by the BRCA). If the FEC has not made rules with such ample notice and longstanding precedent, then your problem is with the FEC, not with the ruling.
#5: "Steven's raised many important issues in his dissent. He is correct (again, I don't like having to admit it) that this ruling does lay the foundation, sets the precedent, for extending the political rights of corporate "persons" even further. ("Under the majority's view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.") http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/01/analysis-the-personhood-of-corporations/"
As I mentioned in the first part of my response, your quote is taken out of context from a blog purporting to analyze the ruling, and improperly leads to reader to suppose that such a view – i.e. that "voting = speech" – has some reality or precedent. This is false. The proper context is:
"Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens may have had his tongue in his cheek, or perhaps wanted merely to taunt the majority, when he wrote in Thursday’s opinion on the role of corporations in national politics: “Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.” It is a tantalizing notion." The writer of the blog knew, and communicated, that no such law or judicial view has ever been a reality. Quite the contrary: the blog fantasized regarding what might be the consequences were corporations actually accorded rights because they were juridical "persons."
D. "the ruling that by itself does open wide the floodgates to corporate (and yes, even foreign corporate) independent spending (especially at the state level)."
Strictly speaking, true, insofar as electioneering but NOT donations to candidates goes. It returns the status of the funding of electioneering (indirect support of candidates by running ads etc. not coordinated with such candidates' campaigns) during elections to the status ante McCain-Feingold: yes, even evil corporations can speak within 30 days of primaries and 60 days of general elections again, just like they could during the first 227 years of this country.
So, we had 227 years' of elections with the "floodgates wide open," then 7 years with the ban on corporate and union speech. Please cite any evidence that the elections of 2004, 2006 and 2008 were better (less "corrupted" by corporate/union dollars/activities) than those prior.
E. " In fact, it has already started. Last night, we received a robo-call from a group of pharmaceutical companies asking us to contact Washington to to support their position on healthcare. This did not appear to come from a person, or a group of person, but from a group of corporations, spending the profits earning under the protection of corporate privileges. (And yes, they've jumped the gun, since the ruling has not gone into effect, but they are probably guessing that they can get away with it since there are no rules, let alone penalties, written to address this situation.)"
1. The ruling has not gone into effect? Eh? I did not notice any part of the ruling containing any "this ruling has no effect until X date" phrase. So far as I know, rulings take effect as soon as they are made unless they state otherwise within the ruling.
2. Unless the call requested you to vote for or against (a) specific, named Federal candidate(s), the call has ALWAYS been legal, even under the now-defunct BRCA. "Issue ads" and the like, including robo-calls, that advocate support for/against a given position on a given issue, were NEVER made illegal for anyone.
3. I don't know what State you are in. Are the primaries where you live slated to occur within 30 days of the date of the calls you received? If so, then the ruling did make that possible (if the calls mentioned voting for or against specific Federal candidates) for the first time since 2002. If not, the corporation(s) involved had the right to robo-call you even when BRCA was in effect.
F. "This is not what the Founders intended. ... They intended for people, for individuals, to have rights, not for entities to have rights. They most certain did not intend for anyone, or any group wealthy enough to afford it to be able to to create a second, or third, or an infinite number of "false" people with equal political voices, to multiply their role in the system."
This is a strange and historically false statement. Thomas Jefferson spearheaded an effort to do just that during the 1794–1800 period called the Democratic-Republican Party, and used it with devastating effect in the 1800 campaign. Madison and Hamilton created a "false" person with the intent to multiply their role in the system by publishing in newspapers the series of letters called the Federalist Papers under the "false" name of Publius.
In conclusion, it seems to me your beef is with the laws as written, and with the precedents and customs of the country for the last two centuries, not with the actual SCOTUS ruling. You have wrongly ascribed a number of actions to the ruling.
We are all entitled to our opinion, Stephen, but not to our own facts. If you can cite any part(s) of the ruling that contradict what I wrote to you, or that support the characterizations you have made, please share them. If, on the other hand, you can find no such part(s), then your unchanged opinion is one taken in defiance of fact, not one informed by fact.
Socratease
Justice Thomas Rebuts Obama on Campaign Finance Ruling...
Justice Defends Ruling on Finance
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: February 3, 2010WASHINGTON — In expansive remarks at a law school in Florida, Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday vigorously defended theSupreme Court’s recent campaign finance decision.
And Justice Thomas explained that he did not attend State of the Union addresses — he missed the dust-up when President Obama used the occasion last week to criticize the court’s decision — because the gatherings had turned so partisan.
Justice Thomas responded to several questions from students at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Fla., concerning the campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. By a 5-to-4 vote, with Justice Thomas in the majority, the court ruled last month that corporations had a First Amendment right to spend money to support or oppose political candidates.
“I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,” Justice Thomas said. “These are corporations.”
The part of the McCain-Feingold law struck down in Citizens United contained an exemption for news reports, commentaries and editorials. But Justice Thomas said that reflected a legislative choice rather than a constitutional principle.
He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.
“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”
It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”
Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.
“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”
“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.
Asked about his attitude toward the two decisions overruled in Citizens United, he said, “If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.”
Justice Thomas would not directly address the controversy over Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Citizens United ruling or Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s mouthed “not true” in response. But he did say he had stopped attending the addresses.
“I don’t go because it has become so partisan and it’s very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there,” he said, adding that “there’s a lot that you don’t hear on TV — the catcalls, the whooping and hollering and under-the-breath comments.”
“One of the consequences,” he added in an apparent reference to last week’s address, “is now the court becomes part of the conversation, if you want to call it that, in the speeches. It’s just an example of why I don’t go.”
StuckInNJ
To TLaCour:
Originally, I only scanned the SCOTUS ruling. But, based on your lengthy response telling me how wrong I was I decided to read the entire 183 page document – which took several hours, as it’s not exactly easy reading. My intent was to find enough ammo supporting my position and to nail your verbose ass to the wall.
However, things did not turn out as planned. After reading it I understand their rationale much better. I agree with their conclusion and, of course, with your assessments. In short, this is an excellent ruling which protects free speech, and overturns the terrible “Austin” ruling which truly endorsed government sponsored censorship.
The key to understanding this is to divorce oneself from the emotionally charged “corporations are evil” mindset. That may very well be true, but corporations here are much more than just the Aetna’s, IBM’s, etc. … it also includes non-profits such as the NRA, Sierra Club, and even TBP! Had the SCOTUS ruled otherwise, the First Amendment itself would have been placed in dire jeopardy. So, again, the ruling is right on the money.
Actually, I’m quite relieved. This further confirms my belief that President Obama is totally full of shit on ALL issues.
Below are some of the main things that stood out for me as I read the SCOTUS ruling. Really … if you think about it, they are right on the money. Hard, if not impossible, to argue with their logic.
“Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers.”
-------------------------- -
“First Amendment protections do not depend on the speaker’s “financial ability to engage in public discussion.” Distinguishing wealthy individuals from corporations based on the latter’s special advantages of, e.g., limited liability, does not suffice to allow laws prohibiting speech.”
-------------------------- -
“Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content.”
-------------------------- -
“Rapid changes in technology—and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression—counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers. Today, 30-second television ads may be the most effective way to convey a political message. Soon, however, it may be that Internet sources, such as blogs and social networking Web sites, will provide citizens with significant information about political candidates and issues. Yet, §441b would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds. See 2 U. S. C. §441b(a); MCFL, supra, at 249. The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech.”
-------------------------- -
“The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.”
Anonymous
Oh how they cry "Those MSM toadies!" but then write as slanted and lying-by-exaggeration -and-omission pieces as Katie Couric. Jim Quinn, you know who I'm talking about. Filthy liar.
DustyB
Thanks TL for the post and especially your comments. I actually went and read the ruling after I read this whole thing, and am floored at the wide extent of corrupt writing and reporting about it.
My question: WHY are so many so-called conservative/libertarian and usually fact-filled sites like this one home to so much bad and fact-bereft writing on this topic?
I can understand ABC etc. doing this, they have a vested interest in being the only groups that can speak freely near elections. Are people like Quinn merely useful idiots, or do they actually desire more State control?