You know, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems SO CLEAR that corporations don't get the same rights that individual citizens get. BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PEOPLE.
Right? In Not!Crazy land Judge Hecubot bangs the gavel and says, "Okay, let's clear up two things. Corporations are not people, so they shouldn't be treated as individuals with individual rights. That one's pretty obvious, I think. Second, when you equate the ability to pay for something with free expression, you basically limit expression to the people who can pay the most for it. That's stupid and obviously inimical to the public good. Sheesh, who thought up that one? Both of those stupid ideas are retired."
Yeah, it's a nightmare. And I can't believe it's real. My brain refuses to acknowledge it, too, and has put in The Onion land even though I tell it otherwise.
Knowing the interest in the Supremes' decision on corporate political contributions, and the adoration of Alan Grayson among certain sectors of the Buffistas:
Rep. Grayson has introduced a bill that would require a majority shareholder vote before a corporation may make political contributions unrelated to the goods or services that the corporation provides.
I haven't read the bill, but info about it (and anything else Congress is doing) can be found through here.
From a Facebook thread:
When it costs more to speak than most people can afford, banding together into corporate entities is the only way free speech can exist for anyone except billionaires. The Supreme Court ruling applies to unions and political groups (which were also restricted under the law), not just businesses. While some would like to let the first two speak but not the third, that's a legal distinction impossible to make without all sorts of complications and loopholes. (It's easy to *say* "exclude for-profit businesses," it's harder to do without unintended consequences. In hearings on the case, an FEC official openly said the law would ban publishers from publishing political books.)
And this:
Rights are not granted, they are recognized. Should corporations be denied the right to freedom of the press, too?
I hadn't seen anyone actually defending the decision, so I was wondering whether any of the arguments had merit.
Rights are not granted, they are recognized.
Human rights are not granted, they are recognized. Corporations aren't human.
banding together into corporate entities is the only way free speech can exist for anyone except billionaires.
I like the possibilities of this. If a group forms a corporation and puts out some really libelous ads--"Rush Limbaugh sacrifices goats before each show, to appease his Dark Master! Devil is jealous that Cheney's getting BBQ every day!"--who would be sued for libel? That's the point of a corporation, that an individual is safe from liability.
Should corporations be denied the right to freedom of the press, too?
First of all -- and I know *you* didn't say this, P-C; I'm just addressing it -- the weak-ass reason the SCOTUS gave was that corporations deserved freedom of *speech,* not the press.
Second, actually, how "free" is speech when it's controlled by the people who can pay the most for it? That seems like the opposite of free to me.
Ahrg. 4:30 on a friday curse strikes yet again.
banding together into corporate entities
I'm not an expert, but I would think that entities defined by law could have restrictions on how they use their treasuries. This is overturning laws from 1907 that I think (again, not an expert) have be argued before. So the decision is overturning precedent. We still restrict their ability to use their treasury to donate to a candidate, why can't we restrict the purchasing of political ads. Again, this is restricting the legal entity, not individuals.
Also, I'm not sure why boobies can be shown in an ad, but there can't be a reasonable restriction on the amount of political advertising that can be done by a single entity. A case of fair access. In a small market, a big corporation could conceivably saturate the radio and TV media, drowning out the speech of others. How much would it be worth to Exxon-Mobil (just an example) to keep a small state senator from getting elected if they represent the likely 60th vote for a key bit of environmental legislation? $100 million, $500 million? A billion? It would be bad PR, but it might be worth choking out any opposition.
