Left andRight, meet in the middle.

[shagdrum]

The fact of the matter is, the result of this ruling is nothing new. McCain-Feingold was passed in 2002. Before that, corporations and unions were just as free to "buy elections" as thy supposedly are now. To put it more bluntly, for 226 years of the republic, corporations were free to do as they wished in this area. To run with wild speculation that corporations will now dominated elections as they never have before is, disingenuous (or ignorant) and highly irresponsible; nothing more then a means to play off emotions and cause people to resent corporations; consistent with the Marxist "exploitation" narrative.

Also, to continue to raise points based in the specious reasoning that has already been countered by those blogs I posted is rude. To simply ignore or dismiss that reasoning shows a childish focus on politics as a means of self-expression instead of an interest in learning and the truth. If you are going to continue to argue that "corporations shouldn't have rights" you need to honestly confront and logically counter the reasoning in those blog posts. To ignore that reasoning, in whole or in part, is to demonstrate that you are not discussing things in good faith.

 

[MonsterMark]

What say you now Foxpaws?

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-...ogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

 

[foxpaws]

The fact of the matter is, the result of this ruling is nothing new. McCain-Feingold was passed in 2002. Before that, corporations and unions were just as free to "buy elections" as thy supposedly are now. To put it more bluntly, for 226 years of the republic, corporations were free to do as they wished in this area. To run with wild speculation that corporations will now dominated elections as they never have before is, disingenuous (or ignorant) and highly irresponsible; nothing more then a means play off emotions and cause people to resent corporations consistent with the Marxist "exploitation" narrative.

Shag - a short history of campaign finance law (or, you shouldn't of done this with a campaign pro...)

Shag, the modern idea of 'corporation' has only been around for about 100 years - so sorry...

And even before then, right after the Civil War, there were laws that prohibited federal officers to request funds from workers.

In 1907, as the robber barons were reaching the height if their power, Congress banned them from contributing to candidates. They passed the Tillman Act, which prohibited corporations and banks from contributing money to Federal campaigns.

The Hatch Act of 1939 allowed Congress to regulate primary elections and included provisions limiting contributions and expenditures in their elections.

The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 barred unions and corporations from making expenditures and contributions in Federal elections.

1971 - huge changes - Federal Election Campaign Act, which required full reporting, but also set up the frame work of PACs -

Cases against those laws were used in this finding... one of them had to do with the fact that 'money' is speech.... Buckley v. Valeo. However the court in Buckley v. Valeo upheld contribution limits - just not spending limits - campaigns could spend as much as they wanted (free speech), but contributors were still held to limits (so elections couldn't be 'bought')

Also, to continue to raise points based in the specious reasoning that has already been countered by those blogs I posted is rude. To simply ignore or dismiss that reasoning shows a childish focus on politics as a means of self-expression instead of an interest in learning and the truth. If you are going to continue to argue that "corporations shouldn't have rights" you need to confront and honestly and logically counter the reasoning in those blog posts. To ignore that reasoning, in whole or in part, is to demonstrate that you are not discussing things in good faith.

So, corporations should have rights - lets just go with that then shag...

So, lets find out what will happen...

Anyone can send $500 to the state of Nevada and create a entity with right of free speech from nothing (one of the cheapest places to create a corporation, Delaware too can look forward to extra money in their coffers). Heck - soon there will be a new 'Dummy' book “How to buy your own Congressmen for Dummies: Start a corporation and buy an election in just 5 easy lessons!” The lawsuits that were brought recently against the Korean businessman that gave money to Hillary's campaign - well all that goes away. Foreign concerns can set up a shell corporation in the US and give all the money they want to campaigns...

So, next - are you really taking away those people's rights within that corporation. They have the freedom of speech, as individuals. There isn't any thing that prevents them from giving money, going on their own soapbox, et al. Why should they have double protection under the law? A corporation shouldn't get to be both a legal entity with corporate protection and then have that set of rules vanish to become just the sum of the individual people under the charter. In this case freedom of speech has not been 'unduly' burdened. Congress has many times created law that removed one avenue or one type of speech, but those laws have withstood the scrutiny of the court, because other avenues are still readily available. All those people who make up the corporation can still give to the corporation's PAC or their union's PAC or make individual contributions. No 'right' has been removed from the individual.

What has been done is a right has been afforded a corporation, beyond the sum of the individuals who make up that corporation. So, now that corporation - a state created entity, has a 'right'. It really has nothing to do with the people within the company, it has everything to do with the corporation. The people within the company may not want 'their' money, their sweat equity, going to a certain candidate - but they will have no voice in the matter, as I pointed out in Foss's 'what if'.

The corporation is required to do certain things - because of its charter. It may be decided that the corporation is required to give money to a KKK candidate because that candidate is promising reforms that would positively affect the bottom line of the corporation. It will not be allow to give to the other candidates in the election, because they aren't the 'best' choice for the corporation. The corporation must fulfill its charter first, even if it goes against the wishes of the board. That is the law.

 

[foxpaws]

Not really. Never mind your wild, silly, logical leap...has Obama kept one single promise yet? You keep forgetting about the lack of character the Usurper in Chief has a problem with, race baiter.

Oh, and I don't vote my job. I'm not shallow like you.
Funny how George Soros' influence hasn't bothered you yet...

I vote my job? Really?

 

[shagdrum]

So, corporations should have rights

Again, no one is arguing that. Perpetuating straw men only destroys your credibility.

You clearly are attempting to ignore those blogs and what they say in favor of spamming your wild speculation, misdirection, false distinctions and rationalizations. "double protection under the law"?! That is absurd.

The fact of the matter is that the greatest corruption between business and government happened with McCain-Feingold (which is the only law we are talking about) in place; the bank bailouts and takeover of GM and Chrysler.

 

[foxpaws]

Again, no one is arguing that. You clearly are attempting to ignore those blogs and what they say in favor of spamming your wild speculation, false distinctions and rationalizations. "double protection under the law"?! That is absurd.

So, shag - do you think that the individuals in corporation haven't had the right of free speech before this ruling?

Shag - this is giving corporations rights... this is setting precedent that will go far beyond election law.

Remember a corporation isn't the sum of it's people - it is it's charter first. That is the law. This isn't about the law allowing those people within the corporation free speech- they already have that. This is about a state created entity having rights. A 'thing'.

Oh, those 'blogs' about free speech and the press... I can find and paraphrase them too...

Fox News as a first amendment speaker is well protected. While it is a partisan speaker, there is no serious contention that its partisan broadcast activities could be restricted.
Fox News Corporation as a buyer of elections is something else all together.

A business corporation’s speech isn't the collective speech of the people who own and run it, it is the charter talking. Once the business reaches a certain size, the corporation (or other structure) speaks through individuals rather than the other way around. Watch any press conference -you will see this in action. The person talking isn't speaking for 'himself', he is speaking for the corporation. The person could totally disagree with what he is saying on a personal level, but on a corporation level he has to talk the talk.

The matter is different with media corporations, whose products are the means individuals use to speak. When Paul Krugman writes a column, it’s not “The New York Times, Inc.” speaking, it’s Krugman. Same with news articles, which represent the view of the author, not the corporation. Even unsigned editorials represent the view of the members of the editorial board, not the view of “The New York Times, Inc.” Why doesn't Townhall get in trouble when Ann Coulter spews hate - because it is the opinion of Ann Coulter, not necessarily the viewpoint of Townhall (ever read those disclaimers shag?)

Freedom of the press protects the author's voice, not the corporate voice of the publisher.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - this is giving corporations rights... this is setting precedent that will go far beyond election law.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true; especially when you ignore relevant and reasonable counter arguments.

Remember a corporation isn't the sum of it's people - it is it's charter first. That is the law.

A corporation is not a "charter first". It is not a "one then the other" type thing. More false distinctions and misdirection.

If all you have is continued spamming of lies and distortions instead of logically and honestly confronting reasonable arguments to the contrary, then you have nothing but excuses.

“Corporate speech” is really just speech by people using the corporate form.

The mistake here is one we see in other contexts. Critics often denigrate rights by conflating them with the means used to exercise them. For example, a standard rhetorical attack on property rights is the claim that property rights aren’t really “human rights.” Property has no rights, it is said. Its true of course that property as such is not entitled to any rights. However, property rights actually belong to the people who own the property, not the physical objects themselves. As the Supreme Court explained in its 1972 decision in Lynch v. Household Financial Corporation:

[T]he dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights. The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation, no less than the right to speak or the right to travel, is in truth a “personal” right.... In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property.​

Human beings organized as corporations shouldn’t have fewer constitutional rights than those organized as sole proprietors, partnerships, and so on. In this context, it’s important to emphasize that most media organizations and political activist groups also use the corporate form. As Eugene points out, most liberals accept the idea that organizational form is irrelevant when it comes to media corporations, which were exempt from the restrictions on other corporate speech struck down by the Court today. The Supreme Court (including its most liberal justices) has repeatedly recognized that media corporations have First Amendment rights just as broad as those extended to media owned by individuals. Yet the “corporations aren’t people” argument applies just as readily to media corporations as to others. After all, newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations “are not human beings” and they too “have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires.” We readily reject this reasoning in the case of media corporations because we recognize that even though the corporations in question are not people, their owners and employees are. The same point applies to other corporations. ​

 

[foxpaws]

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true; especially when you ignore relevant and reasonable counter arguments.



A corporation is not a "charter first". It is not a "one then the other" type thing. More false distinctions and misdirection.

If all you have is continued spamming of lies and distortions instead of logically and honestly confronting reasonable arguments to the contrary, then you have nothing but excuses.

because you can't handle the truth shag - you keep repeating lies you don't understand - especially with regards to how corporations are set up, and how the law handles them differently.

Corporate board members or employees are not free to ‘speak’ through the corporation — their speech is restricted according to the charter. They speak 'in behalf' of Sony. That is why they make a distinction when they speak for themselves, often stating those exact words, "however, speaking for myself" - they have to make the difference very apparent.

It isn't like a sole proprietorship or partnership - the laws that govern them are very different.

In fact, to the extent that their speech might conflict with their duty to shareholders (corporation), they are completely muzzled in the corporate context. And shareholders can’t speak through the corporation either — they can only elect board members.

So, there isn't a 'sum of the parts' here Shag-the corporation is an entity that is separate from the people who work for it. CEOs, Presidents, Board Members may come and go, but the corporation will remain the same. It is a series of charters, written words, not people.

I did edit in the post above (56) to add the press - hope you caught it...

Oh, with regards to property rights-it would be like the property is talking - which could be in direct conflict to what the owner's want. Corporation speak in their own voice-not the voice of the individual or collective owners or employees. When Parke Davis says it didn't kill people with a non-tested pill, it isn't me that is speaking (I am a stock holder) it is the corporation speaking, protecting itself from the harm of lawsuits. It is protecting my money, but it isn't my voice, or even the voices of the employees or board.

 

[shagdrum]

You are missing the point.

Property is directly tied to personal liberty. Corporations are property. That property is a means to exercise free speech. Weather or not it is a means to exercise speech in every context, or weather it is limited to only certain mean of free speech is irrelevant. Laws limiting speech (especially any form of political speech) by a corporation amount to infringing on the First Amendment rights of those involved in the business.

The entire difference between our two positions is in the area of that basic premise; that property rights are directly tied to personal liberty. My argument hinges on that premise and your argument hinges on the rejection of that premise.

Why do you think I posted those blogs? They make the case for that premise. Focusing on anything else is simply yelling past each other. That premise is where the debate starts and ends and you are avoiding it.

Characterizing the argument as "corporations should have rights" completely ignores that basic premise and misrepresents the argument.

As to your argument that it is an individual speaking and not a corporation (post #56); the corporation is allowing that person to use the platform provided by them. Under your logic, the government can mandate that a corporation cannot give that platform to whomever it chooses but only those perpetuating approved messages.

It comes back to the interdependence between personal liberty and property rights. If Cal, Bryan, fossten and I incorporate and purchase a radio station, we should be able to put any political message on there we see fit; including allowing someone else to use our radio station to promote any political message we see fit to allow. Your argument would allow for the government to prevent us from doing that.

It should also be noted that most (if not all) of the limits on speech in the context of a corporation are willingly agreed to and/or a means to protect the rights of those involved in the business.

 

[fossten]

Foxpaws: Blah blah blah
Shagdrum: That's a lie.
Foxpaws: No UR a liar!11!!!ONE11!!!! Blah blah blah

 

[foxpaws]

You are missing the point.

Property is directly tied to personal liberty. Corporations are property. That property is a means to exercise free speech. Weather or not it is a means to exercise speech in every context is irrelevant. Limiting speech in any form by a corporation amounts to a limiting of the First Amendment rights of those involved in the business.

So, you give the property the freedom to speak. And that property can speak against your wishes (it is free to do so under the law). If a corporation was embodied in a robot, and that robot was allowed free speech, it wouldn't be speaking for you (a shareholder in the robot, or an employee of the robot) it would be speaking for that corporation, independently of you. That is how a corporation works shag. (As an aside and homage to Asimov - the three laws of robotics wouldn't even have to be in effect, unless they were written into the robot's charter, you might personally believe that a robot shouldn't hurt people, but if the corporation didn't write that in - well tough luck).

You don't seem to get that. A corporation isn't 'people' it is words on a piece of paper. It doesn't have to have a physical location, it doesn't have to have ever produced a single product. It doesn't have to have a single employee. However, it will still have rights. We are giving rights to a piece of paper. And that piece of paper can act independently from the owners of that paper, to ensure that the piece of paper survives. (sort of another law of robotics...). That is the law shag.

The entire difference between our two positions is in the area of that basic premise. My argument hinges on that premise and your argument hinges on the rejection of that premise.

Yes it does shag - I reject that fact that property has rights independently of its owners or employees. I refuse to believe the founding fathers wanted a piece of paper to have independent rights, removed from the owners of that piece of paper. They didn't state that property has rights that are in addition to the rights of people. You haven't remove one right from the people by not allowing the corporation to contribute (in one form or another) to campaigns. The people involved in the corporation can still give money-correct? What they have allowed is property to give money. Property that is completely removed from the people because of how corporations are set up.

Why do you think I posted those blogs? They cut right to the core differences in this issue and make the case for that premise. Focusing on anything else is simply yelling past each other. That premise is where the debate starts and ends and you are avoiding it.

I haven't avoided it, I have stated it over and over again - property isn't allowed rights. Nothing in the constitution shows that property is allowed rights. The people who own the property are allowed rights, but the property itself isn't allowed rights.

It should also be noted that most (if not all) of the limits on speech in the context of a corporation are willingly agreed to and/or a means to protect the rights of those involved in the business.

As to your argument that it is an individual speaking and not a corporation; the corporation is allowing that person to use the platform provided by them. Under your logic, the government can mandate that a corporation cannot give that platform to whomever it chooses.

I am not sure what you are saying in the first paragraph here shag - that when you speak for a corporation you still have freedom of speech? You do, but what you are saying is dictated by the corporation's charter. Your corporation can say whatever it wants, using you as a mouthpiece. It might be easier in the future - the corporation can have its PR robot in front of crowds saying whatever the corporation wants it to say, never a conflict of interest.

And the second paragraph - again a bit fuzzy. Are you talking about freedom of the press here? The government does mandate to some extent that the corporation gives that platform to anyone, with regards to elections and freedom of political speech - equal time... also campaigns are allowed to purchase advertising space equally.

 

[foxpaws]

Foxpaws: Blah blah blah
Shagdrum: That's a lie.
Foxpaws: No UR a liar!11!!!ONE11!!!! Blah blah blah

If you want to get involved Foss, you might want to post something other than cheerleader drivel....

I don't think you have a clue - shag has yet to get around the fact that corporations, because of the way they are set up, can and in fact at times should act independently from the owners or employees. They are not the 'voice' of the employees or owners, they are a piece of self serving property.

The KKK candidate is a perfect example. The corporation, if it decides it is going to throw money at candidates, will be required by law, to back the candidate best represents its interests. Say the board wants to back the Republican candidate, and they give money to him, they have gone against the charter of the corporation, and haven't acted in the best interests of the corporation. Since they didn't back the KKK candidate (who better represented the interests of the corporation) they will charged in a court of law, because they acted against the best interests of the corporation.

It is a piece of property, set up by law, to act in it's own best interests.

 

[shagdrum]

So, you give the property the freedom to speak.

Again, characterizing the argument as "corporations should have rights" completely ignores the premise of interdependence between property rights and personal liberty and misrepresents the argument.

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.
-John Addams
​

You don't seem to get that. A corporation isn't 'people' it is words on a piece of paper.

That argument has already been countered in those blogs you keep ignoring.

Yes it does shag - I reject that fact that property has rights independently of its owners or employees.

One more time; characterizing the argument as "corporations should have rights" completely ignores the premise of interdependence between property rights and personal liberty and misrepresents the argument.

The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management.
-Thomas Jefferson​

It is clear that you are intentionally avoiding that basic premise in favor of rhetorical fear mongering against big business; the type of fear mongering that leads to loss of liberty.

The most politically effective totalitarian systems have gotten people to give up their own freedom in order to vent their resentment or hatred at other people -- under Communism, the capitalists; under Nazi, the Jews
-Thomas Sowell​

When you are willing to have an honest discussion on this subject, let me know.

 

[shagdrum]

People Organized as Corporations are People Too
by Ilya Somin

Others, such as senior Conspirator Eugene Volokh, are much better qualified than I am to comment on today’s important free speech decision striking down restrictions on campaign-related speech by corporations. I want to focus on the common claim that corporations aren’t entitled to free speech rights (and perhaps other constitutional rights) because they aren’t “real people.” That argument was reiterated in Justice John Paul Stevens’ dissenting opinion today:

Stevens hammers, more than once this morning from the bench on the principle that corporations “are not human beings” and “corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires.” He insists that “they are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.”​

It’s true, of course, that corporations “are not human beings.” But their owners (the stockholders) and employees are. Human beings organized as corporations shouldn’t have fewer constitutional rights than those organized as sole proprietors, partnerships, and so on. In this context, it’s important to emphasize that most media organizations and political activist groups also use the corporate form. As Eugene points out, most liberals accept the idea that organizational form is irrelevant when it comes to media corporations, which were exempt from the restrictions on other corporate speech struck down by the Court today. The Supreme Court (including its most liberal justices) has repeatedly recognized that media corporations have First Amendment rights just as broad as those extended to media owned by individuals. Yet the “corporations aren’t people” argument applies just as readily to media corporations as to others. After all, newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations “are not human beings” and they too “have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires.” We readily reject this reasoning in the case of media corporations because we recognize that even though the corporations in question are not people, their owners and employees are. The same point applies to other corporations.

There are various other arguments for treating political speech by people organized as corporations differently from that by people using other organizational forms. I’m not going to try to address them all here. We can discuss them more productively if we first dispense with the weak but popular claim that corporations aren’t entitled to freedom of speech because they aren’t people.

UPDATE: I should mention that it’s irrelevant that the First Amendment specifically protects the freedom of “the press.” It does not specifically mention “press” entities organized as corporations. So if you believe that freedom of speech doesn’t apply to corporations because they “aren’t people,” the same point applies to freedom of the press. As co-blogger Eugene explains, “freedom of the press” is not a constitutional right for a particular group of people or organizations. Rather it is a right to engage in a certain class of activities (such as publishing newspapers and pamphlets), whether the person doing so is a professional member of the media or not.

 

[shagdrum]

Corporate Rights and Property Rights are Human Rights: Why it’s a Mistake to Conflate a Right with the Means Used to Exercise it
by Ilya Somin

In my last post, I explained why it’s a mistake to deny free speech rights to people organized as corporations on the grounds that corporations aren’t “real people.” It’s true, of course, that a corporation is not a person. But the people who own and operate it are. “Corporate speech” is really just speech by people using the corporate form.

The mistake here is one we see in other contexts. Critics often denigrate rights by conflating them with the means used to exercise them. For example, a standard rhetorical attack on property rights is the claim that property rights aren’t really “human rights.” Property has no rights, it is said. Its true of course that property as such is not entitled to any rights. However, property rights actually belong to the people who own the property, not the physical objects themselves. As the Supreme Court explained in its 1972 decision in Lynch v. Household Financial Corporation:

[T]he dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights. The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation, no less than the right to speak or the right to travel, is in truth a “personal” right.... In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property.​

When I criticize decisions like Kelo v. City of New London, the objection is not that government has violated the rights of land or buildings, but those of the people who own them.

This rhetorical tactic is most often used by liberals and leftists to criticize rights advocated by conservatives and libertarians. However, it’s important to understand that the same ploy can easily be turned on rights favored by the political left. Consider, for instance, the right to use contraceptives upheld by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut. Contraceptives, after all, have no rights. They are inanimate physical objects, like any other property. Under the Connecticut law banning their use, women were still free to avoid pregnancy (e.g. — by abstaining from sex, or by using the rhythm method). They just couldn’t use this particular type of property to do it. It’s easy to see that any such critique of Griswold would be specious. After all, contraceptives are just a means that women use to exercise their rights to reproductive choice, albeit a particularly effective one.

The same point applies to corporate speech and property rights. When corporations “speak,” they are just a means that individuals use to exercise their rights of free speech — often a more effective means than the available alternatives. And just as the right protected in Griswold actually was a human right rather than a right belonging to the contraceptives, property rights are rights of human owners, not rights belonging to tracts of land or objects.

Abjuring this common rhetorical tactic doesn’t by itself resolve longstanding debates over the scope and content of human rights. You can still attack property rights or corporate free speech rights on other grounds. But it does help focus the discussion on real issues and reduce rhetorical distractions.

 

[shagdrum]

More Messages, More Sources

Eugene Volokh is a professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles. He is the founder and co-author of The Volokh Conspiracy blog.

Corporate money has already long been in politics; the most influential actors in most political campaigns are corporations. I speak here of media corporations, such as the one that owns the New York Times.

These corporations overtly editorialize for and against candidates, and also influence elections by choosing what to cover and how to cover it. Even if many newspapers usually try to be neutral in their treatment of candidates outside the editorial pages, many opinion magazines (which are generally owned by corporations) don’t even aspire to such neutrality. And of course this means that media corporations and their owners and officers have tremendous power, far greater than what a typical voter (even a typical rich voter) would have.

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision simply means that other corporations, and unions, will enjoy much the same First Amendment rights that media corporations have. My guess is that most business corporations will not exercise those rights to nearly the same extent that media corporations have.

Among other things, if (say) Exxon were to speak in favor of some candidate, that fact might well alienate so many voters that Exxon’s speech would prove counterproductive. In any event, the court decision means that voters will have more messages from more sources — including wealthy unions and wealthy corporations -– to supplement the messages they already get from wealthy media corporations, wealthy political parties, wealthy advocacy groups, and wealthy individuals, as well as from not-so-wealthy neighbors, bloggers, and others.

The case, which involves a documentary called “Hillary: The Movie” produced by Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit corporation, is also a reminder that “freedom of the press” doesn’t apply just to a particular industry. People and corporations that publish newspapers or make movies or TV programs full-time have no greater First Amendment rights than those who write books, print leaflets, or make movies as a sideline from their ordinary business lives. The freedom of the press simply means that mass distribution technology (whether old, such as books, or new, such as the Internet) gets the same protection that in-person speech does.

 

[fossten]

If you want to get involved Foss, you might want to post something other than cheerleader drivel....

I don't think you have a clue - shag has yet to get around the fact that corporations, because of the way they are set up, can and in fact at times should act independently from the owners or employees. They are not the 'voice' of the employees or owners, they are a piece of self serving property.

The KKK candidate is a perfect example. The corporation, if it decides it is going to throw money at candidates, will be required by law, to back the candidate best represents its interests. Say the board wants to back the Republican candidate, and they give money to him, they have gone against the charter of the corporation, and haven't acted in the best interests of the corporation. Since they didn't back the KKK candidate (who better represented the interests of the corporation) they will charged in a court of law, because they acted against the best interests of the corporation.

It is a piece of property, set up by law, to act in it's own best interests.

You're the one who doesn't have a clue, race baiter. You keep conjuring up these nonsense straw men and then when Shag calls you on your dishonesty, you just ignore it and move to the next flawed argument. You waste time talking past people because you're not interested in a good faith discussion.

 

[foxpaws]

So- the bolded parts I assume are the most important part of this particular piece that you have thrown out. Shag, once again, do you understand how a corporation is set up - that is where we are talking at cross point here...

Well... onward... And I would love it if you would answer some of my points, not just post blog crap after blog crap. Well, not that Volokh or Somin are crap - they are pretty amazing, but it seems like you don't understand the real meaning of what a corporation is.

“Corporate speech” is really just speech by people using the corporate form.

Once again shag - corporations are not 'people' they are independent of the people that make them up. If you are a member of the board, you are not allowed to use the corporation as a pulpit for your beliefs. Only the corporation has that opportunity. The CEO, the board, the shareholders, the employees all have no 'personal' public say on the corporation's pulpit. If the corporation gives money to a candidate, it might be against the wishes of everyone in the company, every owner, every board member, that won't make any difference, the corporation will decide who is in its best interests. It will need to review voting records, platforms, etc. and then decide, based on its charter, who best represents it. And, if someone can show that that decision was based outside of the charter, that say for instance, the CEO's brother was running, so the company gave him a lot of advertising time, but, the CEO's brother wasn't the best candidate that was available, according to the corporation's charter, there will be charges against the CEO. He didn't act in the best interests of the corporation.

property rights actually belong to the people who own the property, not the physical objects themselves

This is true-but, with corporations the law has decided that the corporation needs to best serve the corporation, not necessarily the people who own it. The owners of the corporation might want every light bulb to be changed to environmentally safe ones, but if it isn't in the corporation's best interest to do that, not a single light bulb will be changed. The charter will have to be changed to say that environmental concerns can override economic concerns.

a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property.

But, it has more to do with 'personal' property and not corporate property. Once again shag - ownership in a corporation is different than ownership in a couch. There a very strict laws that prevent owners from doing damage to the corporation, there aren't strict laws that prevent you from letting your dog pee on the couch. Publicly held companies need to have these laws in place to protect not only all the owners, but the actual 'property' itself. So the 'rights' of the property actually override the rights of the individual owners.

When corporations “speak,” they are just a means that individuals use to exercise their rights of free speech — often a more effective means than the available alternatives

But there isn't an individual speaking when a corporation speaks Shag - don't you get that? There isn't even a group of individuals speaking. It is the property speaking. It is as if your couch was saying - don't let the dog pee on me. Now, you might be OK with the dog doing that, and since it is your couch, that is your decision. However if your couch was a corporation, and had a charter - things change. The shareholders might all think that was just fine, the dog peeing thing, but in the charter - wiser men then the shareholders at one time realized that a pee'd on couch had little value, so no peeing. The board can change the charter, but that has to happen, sometimes with votes from the shareholders, before any peeing can happen. The couch has an independent voice from the board, shareholders, and employees.

i haven't seen the contraception thing - that is interesting, I will think about it as well.

so, stop now, look at these points - don't just drudge up yet another blog, or I will do the 'opposite blog' thing - there are lots out there. Lets see if you can discuss this beyond the blog, do you really understand what is going on here - or are you just bolding things that sound good to you...

I think you don't understand how corporations are set up and how they function Shag - that is why you are avoiding 'real' conversation.

 

[foxpaws]

You're the one who doesn't have a clue, race baiter. You keep conjuring up these nonsense straw men and then when Shag calls you on your dishonesty, you just ignore it and move to the next flawed argument. You waste time talking past people because you're not interested in a good faith discussion.

Foss - look at the discussion - don't just discredit me. I have answered, and not with straw men, shag has post blog junk after blog junk, but obviously he doesn't understand corporate law. Property is handled differently within a corporation.

 

[fossten]

Foss - look at the discussion - don't just discredit me. I have answered, and not with straw men, shag has post blog junk after blog junk, but obviously he doesn't understand corporate law. Property is handled differently within a corporation.

Nothing compares to when you quoted your buddy Elroy, only to finally admit that you were using YOURSELF as a source (circular reasoning)? You already have no credibility, fox. You choose whatever flawed tactic suits you at any given moment. You're devolving into ad nauseum now.

 

[shagdrum]

I have answered, and not with straw men

You have consistently perpetuated a straw man in this discussion by perpetuating the lie that this ruling gives corporations rights.

but obviously he doesn't understand corporate law. Property is handled differently within a corporation.

All your sanctimonious posturing aside, corporate law doesn't separate property rights from personal liberty; "corporate law" (or, more accurately, your misleading, self-serving "interpretation" of it) does not trump the Constitution. Property rights are interdependent with personal liberty. That is something the Framers recognized as well as the courts. It is not I who doesn't understand corporate law, it is you who refuses to understand your Constitution; specifically with regards to Natural Rights.

Characterizing this as an issue of corporate law is to mislead; it is an issue of constitutional law. The SCOTUS only takes cases if there is a "Constitutional question" involved.

FYI: This ruling specifically rejects as unconstitutional the notion that a speaker’s "corporate identity" is sufficient basis for suppressing political speech.

From the syllabus of the 183 page ruling:

(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 political speech, but Austin’s antidistortion rationale would permit the Government to ban political speech because the speaker is an association with a corporate form. Political speech is “indispensable to decision-making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation.” Bellotti, supra, at 777 (footnote omitted). This protection is inconsistent with Austin’s rationale, which is meant to prevent corporations from obtaining “ ‘an unfair advantage in the political marketplace’ ” by using “ ‘resources amassed in the economic marketplace.’ ” 494 U. S., at 659. First Amendment protections do not depend on the speaker’s “financial ability to engage in public discussion.” Buckley, supra, at 49. These conclusions were re-affirmed when the Court invalidated a BCRA provision that increased the cap on contributions to one candidate if the opponent made certain expenditures from personal funds. Davis v. Federal Election Comm’n, 554 U. S. ___, ___. 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, in-cluding individuals and the media, use money amassed from the eco-nomic 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’s support” 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. New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U. S. 196, 208. Its censorship is vast in its reach, suppressing the speech of both for-profit and nonprofit,both small and large, corporations. Pp. 32–40.​

​

The idea of a separate legal persona for a corporation is a legal fiction meant to protect the rights of those involved with the corporation (owners, employees, etc.) in certain instances. To use it as a justification to infringe on those rights is to abuse and misuse that. The court rightly rejected that specious rationale. Only by somehow separating property rights from personal liberty could that justification ever stand any serious scrutiny. As a justification for ignoring the interdependence of property and personal liberty assumed in the constitution and recognized by the courts is absurd.

 

[foxpaws]

Nothing compares to when you quoted your buddy Elroy, only to finally admit that you were using YOURSELF as a source (circular reasoning)? You already have no credibility, fox. You choose whatever flawed tactic suits you at any given moment. You're devolving into ad nauseum now.

Well Foss, don't let the dog pee on you....

 

[foxpaws]

All your sanctimonious posturing aside, corporate law doesn't separate property rights from personal liberty; "corporate law" (or, more accurately, your misleading, self-serving "interpretation" of it) does not trump the Constitution. Property rights are interdependent with personal liberty. That is something the Framers recognized as well as the courts. It is not I who doesn't understand corporate law, it is you who refuses to understand your Constitution; specifically with regards to Natural Rights.

Characterizing this as an issue of corporate law is to mislead; it is an issue of constitutional law. The SCOTUS only takes cases if there is a "Constitutional question" involved.

FYI: This ruling specifically rejects as unconstitutional the notion that a speaker’s "corporate identity" is sufficient basis for suppressing political speech.

Of course it is constitutional... duh...

However - 'property' is a separate state created entity under corporate law - I think the SCOTUS got it wrong, and so do a lot of other judges and attorneys.

Austin’s antidistortion rationale would permit the Government to ban political speech because the speaker is an association with a corporate form.

No - only if he were speaking on behalf of the corporation - of the piece of property shag. Plus that sentence makes no sense. The speaker might be 'in' association with a corporate 'firm', or an 'associate' of a corporate firm.

But, to allow Sony-the corporation (which is only property - according to law) to have a say in our elections is wrong.

First Amendment protections do not depend on the speaker’s “financial ability to engage in public discussion."

Not at all - you can be as wealthy as you want. But if you are speaking for a piece of property - that is different shag...

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.

Individuals vs a piece of property... property has no liability, that is why you have limited liability shag - that is why the board isn't hauled off to jail for life if their product kills people, because you can't try a piece of property - you can take property away from the property - monetary suits - but there isn't a moral (criminal) way to get the corporation. You can go after individuals within the corporation for criminal stuff (hard to do though) but not the piece of property. In a criminal court you can't put 'Sony' on the stand.

You are allowing a piece of property the same rights as we have. People don't define the corporation shag - a piece of paper defines the corporation.

Under the antidistortion rationale, Congress could also ban political speech of media corporations.

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.

If you noticed the difference shag - I posted it before and you just ignored it... there is a huge difference between the corporation who built the soapbox and make money off the soapbox and the people who stand on the soapbox and make their (not the corporation who built the soapbox) opinions heard. The soapbox manufacturing corporation doesn't have the same freedom of speech as the guy who stands on it. Because..... yes again, the people who make up the corporation still have their freedom of speech outside the corporation, and the corporation is just a piece of paper...

edit -

I wonder if Lincoln knew that

government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth​

would be perishing less than 150 years after he said those famous words.

Government of the corporations, by the corporations and most importantly - for the corporations

our new mantra...

 

[fossten]

I wonder if Lincoln knew that

government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth

would be perishing less than 150 years after he said those famous words.

Government of the corporations, by the corporations and most importantly - for the corporations

our new mantra...

Oh for God's sake, could you beeeeee any more melodramatic.

Want some cheese with that whine?

Grow up.

 

[shagdrum]

I wonder if Lincoln knew that

government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth​

would be perishing less than 150 years after he said those famous words.

Government of the corporations, by the corporations and most importantly - for the corporations

our new mantra...

Misrepresenting this as a issue of corporate law and using that as a wedge to confuse the issue is dishonest; the issue is not that complicated.

Your desperate intellectual contortions aimed at rationalizing your resentment of big business are rather sad. That resentment usually stems from the socialist "exploitation" narrative which is specious and ultimately based on appeals to envy and self-aggrandizement. Unfortunately, when it comes to issues involving corporations it is clear that, for you at least, passions trump reason and, in defending that view, the end justifies the means.