Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Conservative-leaning SCOTUS strikes again
Jason
God EmperorArrakis Moderator
Not surprisingly, the conservative-leaning Supreme Court has struck again with a 5-to-4 decision in <i><a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf">Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission</a></i> that overturns certain longstanding limits on political campaign spending by corporations. The decision not only overturns section 441b of the <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ155/content-detail.html">McCain-Feingold Act</a>, it effectively overturns <i><a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/494/652/case.html">Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce</a></i> and parts of <i><a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/540/93/index.html">McConnell v. Federal Election Commission</a></i> as well.
The majority opinion that such restrictions amount to "censorship" and a violation of the First Amendment further solidifies the "personhood" of legal entities such as corporations stemming from the 1886 case of <i><a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/118/394/case.html">Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad</a></i>, and puts them on even more of an equal footing with "natural persons."
Moreover, the ruling further bolsters the 1976 decision in <i><a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/424/1/case.html">Buckley v. Valeo</a></i> equating money with speech, which doesn't bode well for the majority of Americans who can't afford to have their 'voices' heard. Corporations are now able to spend as much money from their general funds as they want in any congressional or presidential election they so choose via campaign ads. As <a href="http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/2167-Statement-of-Ralph-Nader-on-Supreme-Court-Decision-in-Citizens-United-v.-Federal-Election-Commission.html">Ralph Nader puts it</a>:
<blockquote>Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission shreds the fabric of our already weakened democracy by allowing corporations to more completely dominate our corrupted electoral process. It is outrageous that corporations already attempt to influence or bribe our political candidates through their political action committees (PACs), which solicit employees and shareholders for donations. With this decision, corporations can now also draw on their corporate treasuries and pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars.</blockquote>
Maybe I'm just overreacting, but this could very well be the beginning of the end for democracy as we know it. This ruling sets a dangerous precedent, and I couldn't agree more with the <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf">dissenting opinion penned by Justice Stevens</a>, especially this glaringly obvious point:
<blockquote>The fact that corporations are different from human beings might seem to need no elaboration, except that the majority opinion almost completely elides it. <i>Austin</i> set forth some of the basic differences. Unlike natural persons, corporations have "limited liability" for their owners and managers, "perpetual life," separation of ownership and control, "and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of assets...that enhance their ability to attract capital and to deploy their resources in ways that maximize the return of their shareholders' investments." 494 U.S., at 658-659. Unlike voters in U.S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled. Unlike other interest groups, business corporations have been "effectively delegated responsibility for ensuring society's economic welfare"; they inescapably structure the life of every citizen. "'[T]he resources in the treasury of a business corporation,'" furthermore, "'are not an indication of popular support for the corporation’s political ideas.'" <i>Id</i>., at 659 (quoting <i>MCFL</i>, 479 U.S., at 258). "'They reflect instead the economically motivated decisions of investors and customers. The availability of these resources may make a corporation a formidable political presence, even though the power of the corporation may be no reflection of the power of its ideas,'" 494 U.s., at 659 (quoting <i>MCFL</i>, 479 U.S., at 258).
It might also be added that corporations have no conscience, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their "personhood" often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of "We the People" by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.</blockquote>
As for the issue of the <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1toc_user.html">First Amendment</a>, it doesn't explicitly state who's entitled to these protections, except near the end where it mentions "the press" and "the people," and it can certainly be argued that corporations are included. However, my opinion — which is mostly based upon some of the Founding Fathers' <a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php?title=808&chapter=88352&layout=html&Itemid=27">statements regarding large corporations</a> and the fact that the states <a href="http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html">strictly limited the power of corporations</a> — is that these protections were meant for the press and the people, as in natural persons or citizens, and were never intended to apply to corporations.
Personally, I think the "government of the people, by the people, for the people" was negatively impacted the day corporations were essentially granted personhood, which effectively extends <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14toc_user.html">certain constitutional protections</a> to corporations and other legal persons, such as the ability to contribute to political campaigns.
The way elections are currently conducted and financed in the U.S., the average citizen has enough trouble competing with the lobbying power of large multinational corporations, thereby severely limiting their 'voice' in the political process.
And despite the fact that this ruling means other legal entities such as unions, environmental groups, etc. can also run unlimited campaign ads, this new ability of corporations to relentlessly bombard newspapers and airwaves with ads using their general funds will merely serve to bring these big-monied interests that much closer to Washington, and consequently, the U.S. one step closer to a plutocracy.
The majority opinion that such restrictions amount to "censorship" and a violation of the First Amendment further solidifies the "personhood" of legal entities such as corporations stemming from the 1886 case of <i><a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/118/394/case.html">Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad</a></i>, and puts them on even more of an equal footing with "natural persons."
Moreover, the ruling further bolsters the 1976 decision in <i><a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/424/1/case.html">Buckley v. Valeo</a></i> equating money with speech, which doesn't bode well for the majority of Americans who can't afford to have their 'voices' heard. Corporations are now able to spend as much money from their general funds as they want in any congressional or presidential election they so choose via campaign ads. As <a href="http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/2167-Statement-of-Ralph-Nader-on-Supreme-Court-Decision-in-Citizens-United-v.-Federal-Election-Commission.html">Ralph Nader puts it</a>:
<blockquote>Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission shreds the fabric of our already weakened democracy by allowing corporations to more completely dominate our corrupted electoral process. It is outrageous that corporations already attempt to influence or bribe our political candidates through their political action committees (PACs), which solicit employees and shareholders for donations. With this decision, corporations can now also draw on their corporate treasuries and pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars.</blockquote>
Maybe I'm just overreacting, but this could very well be the beginning of the end for democracy as we know it. This ruling sets a dangerous precedent, and I couldn't agree more with the <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf">dissenting opinion penned by Justice Stevens</a>, especially this glaringly obvious point:
<blockquote>The fact that corporations are different from human beings might seem to need no elaboration, except that the majority opinion almost completely elides it. <i>Austin</i> set forth some of the basic differences. Unlike natural persons, corporations have "limited liability" for their owners and managers, "perpetual life," separation of ownership and control, "and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of assets...that enhance their ability to attract capital and to deploy their resources in ways that maximize the return of their shareholders' investments." 494 U.S., at 658-659. Unlike voters in U.S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled. Unlike other interest groups, business corporations have been "effectively delegated responsibility for ensuring society's economic welfare"; they inescapably structure the life of every citizen. "'[T]he resources in the treasury of a business corporation,'" furthermore, "'are not an indication of popular support for the corporation’s political ideas.'" <i>Id</i>., at 659 (quoting <i>MCFL</i>, 479 U.S., at 258). "'They reflect instead the economically motivated decisions of investors and customers. The availability of these resources may make a corporation a formidable political presence, even though the power of the corporation may be no reflection of the power of its ideas,'" 494 U.s., at 659 (quoting <i>MCFL</i>, 479 U.S., at 258).
It might also be added that corporations have no conscience, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their "personhood" often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of "We the People" by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.</blockquote>
As for the issue of the <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1toc_user.html">First Amendment</a>, it doesn't explicitly state who's entitled to these protections, except near the end where it mentions "the press" and "the people," and it can certainly be argued that corporations are included. However, my opinion — which is mostly based upon some of the Founding Fathers' <a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php?title=808&chapter=88352&layout=html&Itemid=27">statements regarding large corporations</a> and the fact that the states <a href="http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html">strictly limited the power of corporations</a> — is that these protections were meant for the press and the people, as in natural persons or citizens, and were never intended to apply to corporations.
Personally, I think the "government of the people, by the people, for the people" was negatively impacted the day corporations were essentially granted personhood, which effectively extends <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14toc_user.html">certain constitutional protections</a> to corporations and other legal persons, such as the ability to contribute to political campaigns.
The way elections are currently conducted and financed in the U.S., the average citizen has enough trouble competing with the lobbying power of large multinational corporations, thereby severely limiting their 'voice' in the political process.
And despite the fact that this ruling means other legal entities such as unions, environmental groups, etc. can also run unlimited campaign ads, this new ability of corporations to relentlessly bombard newspapers and airwaves with ads using their general funds will merely serve to bring these big-monied interests that much closer to Washington, and consequently, the U.S. one step closer to a plutocracy.
0
Comments
Palzang
In any case, getting back to the point, it's times like these when I really wish some of these Justices would retire back to private life. I would never wish for someones misfortune, no, just that perhaps they'll want to spend a little more time with the family in their later years so that Obama can replace them with better minded Judges.
Though...
This is Sotomayor's first major decision to, very very disappointing.
Palzang
brian
If we hold Mongolia in higher regard simply because of it's religion, that's a bit ignorant and blind. You won't find a single unbiased organization that would say the U.S. is more corrupt than Mongolia, mostly because of a more structured and balanced Democracy.
Not saying it doesn't happen, it does in every nation, just on a less [ per capita ] scale.
brian
Do you think that most citizens are just lemmings who will just be swindled on account of corporations spending money on political candidates?
Personally, I don't care who spends on what or how much when it comes to politics. If we know who's spending the money (Paid for by...), then what's the big deal?
The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and other media outlets are "the press," and therefore explicitly protected by the First Amendment regardless of whether or not they're incorporated.
As for corporations in general, I don't think they're intrinsically good or evil. They're simply institutions that are granted charters recognizing them as a separate legal entities, with their own rights, privileges and liabilities distinct from those of their members. However, being entirely creations of state law, I don't think these entities should be accorded the same rights as natural persons, especially when they may be foreign controlled.
The problem I have with this ruling is that "legal persons" like corporations aren't human beings, and I don't believe that the Founding Founders — especially Jefferson — ever intended to treat them as such. As far as I'm concerned, they shouldn't be protected by the First Amendment in the same way that you and I are, mainly due to the glaringly obvious distinction between corporations and human beings as Justice Stevens made clear in his dissent:
It might also be added that corporations have no conscience, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their "personhood" often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of "We the People" by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.
In addition, I don't believe that money equals speech; speech equals speech. If money equals speech, then those with the most money speak the loudest, which, as I said, doesn't bode well for the majority of Americans who can't afford to have their 'voices' heard.
Unfortunately, the ruling in <i><a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/424/1/case.html">Buckley v. Valeo</a></i> essentially set forth the idea that spending money on speech is itself speech. Nevertheless, the way I see it, corporations, as "legal persons," already have an advantage over individual citizens in their ability to influence politics via lobbying, etc. This ruling just opens the gates for even more spending, straight from their general funds, and the shareholders don't even have a say in the matter.
My primary concern is that, as "legal persons," corporations can potentially have a disproportionate effect on elections that almost no "natural person" can match, mainly by dominating newspapers and airwaves with ads, which can sometimes be misleading.
I'd be much less worried if corporations were at least required to get a majority of its shareholders to agree to the spending whenever they dipped into their general funds in support of, or opposition to, any candidate. This way, it'll not only be a collective group of individuals speaking (as opposed to just the CEO, board of directors, etc.), but they'll be able to actively decide where their money is being spent and what it's being spent to say.
I do agree that the corporations should not be given the same rights as individual citizens. To be completely honest though, the real problem is not where the candidates are getting their money, the problem lies with politicians that are more concerned with getting re-elected than doing what is right for their constituents; it seems almost all candiates have become career politicians as opposed to public servents. If politicians were more concerned with preserving and protecting our rights and freedoms as citizens than getting re-elected, then it would really be much less important how much money a candidate could raise.
I sincerely doubt that. For one thing, corporations are the creation of state government via charters recognizing them as a separate legal entities, with their own rights, privileges and liabilities distinct from those of their member. Their very existence depends on government.
Not only that, but historically speaking, the states imposed far tougher regulations and restrictions on corporations during the first 100 years of our nation's history than they do now.
Personally, I think the problem lies with the system itself. I think that approving public financing for campaigns, especially for federal elections, would go a long way towards fixing the problem.
I guess my libertarian upbringing comes out sometimes a little too strong. But when you give our power hunger bureaucracy an inch they stretch that inch to a mile every time.
Public finance of campaigns would solve the symptom of corporations currupting elections and I agree it would be a vast improvement to our system.
However, I am more of an idealist and hope and expect that my representatives look out for what is best for their constituents more so than their re-election. It seems like a bigger fantasy than a suicide bomber's virgin aboundant afterlife dream at times but what can I say, I am an idealist.
I hear ya!
But then, it all depends on who programmed you, how much they paid for the software, and how much hardware you'll let them stick up into you.
Nuff said. The republic is now dead.