The consequences of Citizens United vs. FEC

[Henry Hawk]

so you think it is okay for our Government to say how much money business can spend or not spend on freedom of speech....to promote ideas that they think is best?
Hey, for what it is worth, I AM on the fence on this whole issue.....I think something needs to be done....but, I don't have the answer....but, gov telling people or business HOW to use thier money is NOT a constituitional way.

[The Troll]

so you think it is okay for our Government to say how much money business can spend or not spend on freedom of speech....to promote ideas that they think is best?
Hey, for what it is worth, I AM on the fence on this whole issue.....I think something needs to be done....but, I don't have the answer....but, gov telling people or business HOW to use their money is NOT a constitutional way.

  Henry, they didn't have multibillion dollar corporations, and billionaires (Koch brothers} buying politicians and elections back when they wrote the Constitution.

  And where did the dumbass Supreme Court say that a corporation is a person.  It doesn't have a live beating heart and it doesn't breath.  I know one thing it doesn't say anything about in the Constitution.  I think these asshole "SCOUS" have been bought some how.  But even you know it all about the money.   

  But I'm getting sick and tired of you saying the government doesn't have the right to say anything about what people say or do.  If the government of the people of the United States of American can't control the robber barons and the super rich from stomping us into slavery and the dust then who does? 

[followsthewolf]

Individually, a person can contribute money to any campaign he/she wishes.

The Constitution doesn't have any guarantees for "corporate rights" at all.

To equate "corporate rights" with individual rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution is a travesty.

The only reason any person on the court could have for this incredible decision is because he/she is imbued with the "geed is good" ethic
espoused by Gordon Gecko.

Of course, with the questionable backgrounds of some on the court who voted for it, the "greed is good" ethic is competing with the "stupid is as stupid does" ethic.

Sarcasm certainly intended.

[Palehorse]

Individually, a person can contribute money to any campaign he/she wishes.

The Constitution doesn't have any guarantees for "corporate rights" at all.

To equate "corporate rights" with individual rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution is a travesty.

The only reason any person on the court could have for this incredible decision is because he/she is imbued with the "geed is good" ethic
espoused by Gordon Gecko.

Of course, with the questionable backgrounds of some on the court who voted for it, the "greed is good" ethic is competing with the "stupid is as stupid does" ethic.

Sarcasm certainly intended.

And seconded!  Well said my friend!

[Henry Hawk]

Okay guys, help me out here...I am trying very hard to get my head wrapped around this....though I understand where frustration comes in with corrupt political money....I think we need to follow our constitution as close as possible....let me break this down.

Are you somehow suggesting that Corporations do NOT have Constitutional rights?

[Exterminator]

Are you somehow suggesting that Corporations do NOT have Constitutional rights?

Not suggesting it, stating it plain and simple: corporations are not people and have no rights whatsoever.

[followsthewolf]

bingo

individuals do; corporations don't

[Henry Hawk]

Not suggesting it, stating it plain and simple: corporations are not people and have no rights whatsoever.

So then the government can censor the NY Times if it choose too?....They can take over NBC studios and tell them what they can no longer air?
They have NO rights whatsoever?!?  really?  The 1st amendment does not apply?


With your logic, our government could go into GM and search through all of their offices for anything illegal....because the 4th amendment no longer applies?


They could take over The Bank of America's properties and use it for thier own use because the 5th amendment means nothing anymore?

Ex, Corporations ARE bodies of people with RIGHTS....therefore, those rights cannot be stepped on.  Despite they are individuals or groups of people.

[followsthewolf]

No, because they are the property of individuals, like you own your house.

But the corporation is not imbued with additional rights because it is a business, like you do not magically assume additional rights because you own property.

Oops. I am answering for someone else.

My apologies.

I do have to add that the government can absolutely go into a business and search it -- so long as a search warrant is legally obtained first, or permission is granted by an officer of the corporation.

Why would you think the government could not do that?

They can search your home with a legally obtained search warrant (or other circumstances -- but you get the point).

[Henry Hawk]

No, because they are the property of individuals, like you own your house.

But the corporation is not imbued with additional rights because it is a business, like you do not magically assume additional rights because you own property.

Oops. I am answering for someone else.

My apologies.

I do have to add that the government can absolutely go into a business and search it -- so long as a search warrant is legally obtained first, or permission is granted by an officer of the corporation.

Why would you think the government could not do that?

They can search your home with a legally obtained search warrant (or other circumstances -- but you get the point).

But, if a corporation does not have rights, as you say, they are not protected by the Constitution....then the gov don't need no paper to tell them what they can do....

Corps ARE people...just a bunch of them....so, you say the lose ALL Constitutional rights?

No apologies FTW, I am curious on this one...I have been reading a bunch on this this morning.....

I have found this interesting:

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.

[followsthewolf]

Yep.

Like I said, they have rights as individuals.

[The Troll]

No, because they are the property of individuals, like you own your house.

But the corporation is not imbued with additional rights because it is a business, like you do not magically assume additional rights because you own property.

Oops. I am answering for someone else.

My apologies.

I do have to add that the government can absolutely go into a business and search it -- so long as a search warrant is legally obtained first, or permission is granted by an officer of the corporation.

Why would you think the government could not do that?

They can search your home with a legally obtained search warrant (or other circumstances -- but you get the point).

  Just  like you so corporations can be searched and taken over by the government if you and them do something illegal.  The government has took over a couple thousands of banks in the last few years and yes Henry the government took over a whore house and ran it.

  With the  last Supreme Court ruling the corporations have more rights than Henry.  They can give more money to politicians than Henry and they don't go to jail.

   Not to  long ago Toyota was fined by the government 16.5 million dollars for not reporting safety defects in their cars.  Wow, the government was really going to hurt Toyota with this fine.  Hell, Toyota makes more than that in one day.

  But, there is one question I would like to ask is, Henry was born and raised in a blue collar family.  A union family, a hard working family, a tax  paying family.  So where does Henry come up with this fucked up thinking about rich people, corporations and unions?  How could he possibly even dreamed them up?  It must be some form of mental illness.  It couldn't have been from some blue nosed college because he went to a trade school, they don't teach politics or predatory capitalism or greed is good.  All of this and he's only 51 years old.  For Henry, when does wisdom kick in.   

  So will some one out there please tell me, where in hell does Henry come up with this crap.       

[Palehorse]

But, if a corporation does not have rights, as you say, they are not protected by the Constitution....then the gov don't need no paper to tell them what they can do....

Corps ARE people...just a bunch of them....so, you say the lose ALL Constitutional rights?

No apologies FTW, I am curious on this one...I have been reading a bunch on this this morning.....

I have found this interesting:

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.

The individuals (owners) have rights as individuals. Corporations should not! It is "double dipping" and then there is the fact that corporations are not subjected to being held legally accountable for the violation of an individual's constitutional rights.

Corporations are subject to governmental oversight on some level that varies from industry to industry. That is why we have governmental entities like OSHA and the FAA, etc. (Although, deregulation has served to decrease the level of oversight for many industries, and that has served to bring us things like the mortgage crises and the exacerbation of the economic crises domestically).

No one says a corporation does not have a right to free speech and constitutional protection from malicious prosecution, but what we ARE saying is they do NOT have a vote, nor should they, in our governmental process; and what Citizens United vs, FEC did was provide them a HUGE inroad into our governmental process by enabling corporations to contribute to election campaigns without limitation.

I for one believe that corporations should have zero ability to contribute to any political campaign, and this belief would include organizations like labor unions. IMHO the standard should be if you do not have a vote you are ineligible to contribute toward any political campaign. . . in any way, shape, or form. This would exclude endorsement of a given candidate or political party, but limit it to a predetermined ceiling surrounding how much may be expended toward the purchase and publication of advertising materials, like $200, 000.00 per fiscal year.

Corporations should have no right to vote, but they already have via the ability to purchase without limitation the allegiance of a given candidate or party that would support legislation that increases their position; at levels most individuals would never be able to meet or exceed, even if they banded together.

[Locutus]

Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission = The Best Government Money Can Buy   

[Exterminator]

Should a corporation be able to vote, Henry?  How about get married?  Adopt children?  Drive a car?