Pages

Jump to bottom

8 comments

1 freetoken  Tue, Oct 29, 2013 4:26:57pm

Is that “pray”, or is it “prey”?

2 TheAntichrist  Tue, Oct 29, 2013 5:22:05pm

The article gets it wrong in the very first sentence. Citizens United was not about corporate personhood at all, nor did it expand corporate personhood. Nor did it have anything whatsoever to do with donations to political campaigns. It was strictly a free speech issue decided on 1st Amendment grounds - “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech”. And that’s exactly what the parts of McCain-Feingold struck down attempted to do.

Never in my life have I seen a SCOTUS decision so misunderstood, I don’t think the critics even bothered to read it let alone understand the issues involved. And just think if it had been decided the way the critics were wanting - that the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to corporations. Then the government would be free to censor any way they like corporate-owned news media such as the very paper that article is written in, as well as corporate-owned television, radio, and internet news sources. The decision was a victory for free speech, something we all should cherish - even for those with whom we disagree.

3 CuriousLurker  Tue, Oct 29, 2013 6:05:21pm

re: #2 TheAntichrist

You are wrong.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast. […]

Analysis: The personhood of corporations

….It has been understood, for decades, that corporations are “persons” under the Constitution. And nothing the Supreme Court said Thursday undermined that notion. If anything, the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission conferred new dignity on corporate “persons,” treating them — under the First Amendment free-speech clause — as the equal of human beings.

At least in politics, the Court majority indicated, corporations have a voice, and they have worthy political ideas. Here is the way Justice Anthony M. Kennedy put it (partially quoting from an earlier ruling): “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.” […]

O’Connor Calls Citizens United Ruling ‘A Problem’

In deciding Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission last week, the Supreme Court found that corporations should not be restricted from spending unlimited amounts on political commercials because to limit that spending would violate the First Amendment. […]

One wrinkle in the Citizens United case that has largely escaped notice, O’Connor said, is that the opinion has the potential to unleash more corporate spending in campaigns for state judgeships, a problem she has already been highlighting because of the potential for donations to have a corrupting influence on the legal process.

“This rise in judicial campaigning makes last week’s opinion in Citizens United a problem for an independent judiciary,” she told an auditorium of lawyers and Georgetown University law students in Washington. “No state can possibly benefit from having that much money injected into a political campaign.” […]

The issue was highlighted most recently by a case in West Virginia featured in an ABC News investigation. In that instance, a mining executive waged a multi-million dollar advertising campaign to elect the swing justice on the West Virginia Supreme Court. The judge then presided over a case the executive’s company had appealed to the court. […]

O’Connor: US campaign finance trend troubling

”Citizens United produced a decision that, over the years, is going to cause lots of issues for the public to resolve,” O’Connor told law students at Roger Williams University School of Law on Wednesday, […]

”I think it may have caused more problems than answers given,” she said of the 2010 decision. ”I don’t know what we’re going to do with the problems raised by Citizens United.” […]

4 Political Atheist  Tue, Oct 29, 2013 7:00:58pm

re: #3 CuriousLurker

Heh. Nothin but net. 3 point shot.

5 CuriousLurker  Tue, Oct 29, 2013 7:24:22pm

re: #4 Political Atheist

Heh. Nothin but net. 3 point shot.

When I see comments like that I have to wonder what sort of audience people are used to. It’s like, “You do realize that the fact that we’re participating in this blog means we also have access to Google and can verify stuff, right?” O_o

6 TheAntichrist  Tue, Oct 29, 2013 7:57:02pm

re: #4 Political Atheist

Nothing you posted disproves what I said, In fact the bits of the opinion you bolded proves my point - this was not about donating to political campaigns as claimed by the author of the article. Corporate personhood is not even mentioned in the decision, the 1st Amendment is mentioned 13 times.

Nor does the 1st Amendment grant free speech rights to persons, it prohibits Congress from abridging them. And not only did Congress attempt to abridge free speech rights, they wanted to abridge the most important kind of speech - political speech. And they wanted to do it at a time when political speech was most important - in the time immediately prior to an election.

People don’t lose the right to free speech because they pool their money together in a corporation in order to increase the height of their soap box, so to speak. Indeed, by pooling their money together groups of people of modest means can make their voices heard as much as the rich.

And I note you completely ignored my point about how the government would be free to censor the LA Times, MSNBC, CNN, and all other corporate-owned news media if 1st Amendment protections didn’t apply to them as well. Indeed, McCain-Feingold specifically exempted corporate news media from the law, which implicitly affirms that they felt they could apply it to those entities if they chose to do so.

I can only assume all the people down dinging me think that free speech should apply only to those views with which they agree.

7 CuriousLurker  Tue, Oct 29, 2013 8:55:59pm

I was going to, but…nah, there are too many other things I’d rather be doing. LOL

*wanders off to find out if there’s a way she can convince Congress to abridge the free speech rights of anyone who disagrees with her*

Youtube Video

8 CuriousLurker  Wed, Oct 30, 2013 5:36:01am

re: #6 TheAntichrist

I can only assume all the people down dinging me think that free speech should apply only to those views with which they agree.

Gosh, you’ve got some frighteningly keen insight. It’s a good thing Charles disabled the LGF Free Speech Auto-Censor™ or your ability to comment would cease as soon as you hit the maximum down-ding quota.

Oh, wait—the First Amendment only protects you from the government limiting your free speech. It’s a shame that our founding fathers didn’t foresee the need to protect citizens from the brutal oppression of the down-dings of discord.

Charles, can you please turn the auto-censor back on?? //


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh