In-Our-Face, Activist Court

You're right, Reverend. Free speech sucks. Without it, Obama would still be popular and everything.

1) Where does Stevens find the word “human beings” in the Constitution? Doesn’t exist. Progs like to invent words in the constitution when it suits them and disregard others when it doesn’t.

3) So we should never over turn SCOTUS precedent? Then I guess Dread Scott should be reinstated?

4) The current president of the United States had a campaign that raised $650M and in total spent over a BILLION dollars. Yes, campaign finance reform was sure doing a great job.

5) This ruling won’t change the amount of money that is spent. Unions (and I am proud that you included them) and corporations already worked the loop holes (see billion dollar president). The act wasn’t working and it only resulted in a loss of individual freedom.

5) Aren’t you for transparency? Wouldn’t it be nice to see which union or corporation is funneling money instead of through 3rd party PACS and sponsored community groups?

6) Rev, even a fear monger like yourself could see the ramifications if the act remained in place. Just imagine Sarah Palin getting court orders to ban all books, television commercials and internet commerce which portray her negatively. The “precedent” would have been set – you can ban speech if there is some nebulas corporation behind it. I am sure that if instead of Hilary the Movie it was a Michael Moore or Oliver Stone film which got “censored” you would be raising hell (rightfully so I might add). Books, tv, movies, don’t appear out of no where, they’re all funded by….. corporations! And would all be fair game. Bye bye W. Bye Bye Capitalism a Love Story. Y

You Progs love to change the rules (see Mass senate appointment under Mitt or Switch In Time to Save Nine) when it furthers your agenda but you always forget what your opposition would do if they had the same power. If the Clinton movie can be banned then your opponent will have the power to ban the movies he doesn’t like.

Great day for freedom. Fantastic day for freedom!

I am done with my Rev quota. I read two of his posts in one day. I need to bleach my eyes.

Change.

Great line Larry D.

This is horrible and my so called liberal media newspaper NY's Newday is for it . (Which since they were taken over by cablevision they lost their voice to them) This isn't free speech they are using that to mask what it really is – Corporation take over . Free speech they always had we have – They can donate they can write they can talk just like I can. But what they want is their voice to be louder than the rest of ours. To drown us out because they got the money. They want to buy our politicians . And it is not even about people who work for corporations having a voice it is about a few shareholders and board of directors enforcing their voice over others. And watch now how Obama and other politicians will now cater to banks … Can you imagine wall street voice now when they tell Obama they will spend millions to defeat him – You havent seen nothing yet.

dd20 – transparency as in third party pacs as in organizations like move on .org which is made up of people – people who don't have a loud voice -people like me – but when they get together they do have a voice and they got RULES
they have to limit and file PACs are required to file with the Federal Election Commission . PACs can only give $5,000 to a candidate committee per election and can only give give up to $15,000 annually to any national party committee.
Unions already have to identify the sources of money for their political activity

McCain-Feingold prohibited corporately sponsored political ads 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general eelction.

No bookbanning, no stifling of free speech….just a common sense approach to prevent Big Money from controlling every election with a flood of issue ads on the teevee just before an election.

But the Roberts Court has no common sense. The 5 activist jurists have an agenda, and it's the same one that Big Money has.

larry, you're going to have to work on some new material…because Obama is liked by 80% of Americans. When 8 out of 10 like you …..you're normally considered, you know, to be popular. But hey, by all means, don't let facts get in the way of a predestined one liner…..one that my friend, Ben Keeler, found amusing.

Like the man, hate the nefarious policies, they say Reverend.

We have a president who has fired a CEO, handed a good chunk of one our nation's largest corporations to union thugs and uses one industry or another as a scapegoat anytime a major piece of legislation is discussed. Corporations employ millions of Americans whose jobs depend on corporate success. They should have a voice and in American politics as it stands today, money is the only thing that talks.

Andrea and Reverend think Citizens United was not entitled to air or advertise their film.

They are both Nazis. No more and no less.

Free speech is the most critical right we possess in this country. We don't get to pick and choose which citizens get to exercise it.

Zeig Heil, bitches.

And I apologize for misspelling 'Sieg Heil', bitches.

So, a corporation is equivalent to an American citizen?

Yes or no?

My goodness, the dyslexic foolishness, King. With this Supreme Court ruling corporations will extend their power over our political process. Using the health care reform legislation as a prime example….it was written by corporate lawyers representing flush corporations who already reward elected officials with campaign bribery cash. Roberts and his henchmen, not satisfied with Big Money only writing our legislation, want corporations to be able to propagandize voters in an unlimited fashion through Big Media, as well.

King stands shoulder to shoulder with Big Money, lining up where they tell him to line up. Instead of lining up with the people, for whom the free speech guarantee was written….he lines up with the corporations. Couple that ideology with King's incessant worry-wart-ism that the rich and corporations are taxed too much…..and I begin to wonder whose side King is really on.

I think it's amuzing that Da King thinks that propaganda from Citizens United is "free speech". And then calls people Nazis for wanting to squash political propaganda. You know the stuff that the National Socialist Party used in Germany to make everything look 100 times worse then they were, the same movies that they used to glorify Death Camps etc. Because that is what Citizens United is. A political front. It's not an "independent film group". This is the same group that filed and Injunction against that dreck Michael Moore, siting that Farenheit 9/11 was "a political commercial and propaganda." Run by the chief investigator of White Water. But nope, no political motive to publish a film trying to degrade Hillary Clinton in anyway. Just a free speech film maker.

Oink Oink!

Da king they wanted to break rules – The movie Hillary by Citizens United's was a political ad just like traditional one-minute spots and therefore broke the rules and was funded corporations . We have rules – when you go to vote at least in NY you are not allowed to campaign within so many feet of the voting poll – so you mean if some corporation or individual now decides they wants "freedom of speech " we should now allow them to campaign inside the voting area – and maybe they should also be allowed to yell threatening remarks at you while you vote too …should that also be allowed under freedom of speech ? when does it end. ? You want big money corporations to control our country now – they now can bribe every politician or they will go on TV with 1 hr so called documentaries trashing the candidate right before the election. Because they have the money and the little grassroots guy doesnt.

They already control our govt. How do you think Obama got elected? Lots of promises to big corporations and huge special interests. This whole thing with the banks and the insurance companies and the unions is being done with a "wink and a nod", good guy, bad guy style. Forget about a better life for your kids if this continues. These new regulations for the banks and wallstreet are no way near fair to the common man.

Tbomb – you are so inspiring. I should have gotten you a job a Burger King.

I know we are not going to agree on politics, Reverse.

But, there is something here that we should be nervous about.

There was a bunch of complaining about Bush exceeding his authority. (We won't agree on this either)

People complain about the Legislative branch operating outside the constitution.

But while we were watching them, the Supreme Court has quietly become the 'first among equals' of the three branches of government. What happened to the checks and balances?

I know you don't agree with the decision noted above, but if it was right… The SCOTUS effectively changed the constitution when they originally found McCain Feingold constitutional. Then they just changed it again with this decision. If this decision was wrong, the good news is they only changed the constitution once.

Think of the difficulty in the Amendment Process. It should not be this easy to change the constitution.

bzzzp…I don't know about this statement…

"People complain about the Legislative branch operating outside the constitution."

I haven't heard much complaining about Congress acting outside the Constitution. Unless you are referring to the obstructionist filibustering by GOP'ers. Demanding 60 votes on all things…..is not in the Constitution….the Senate makes up it's own rules.

Spot on…Andrea.

This ruling could very well be the death knell for what's left of American democracy.

Reverend,
The Rev parrots the ridiculous diversion that I stand with big money. Nonsense. What I stand for is free speech, and we don't have free speech when the government dictates which citizens can exercise it and/or when they can exercise it. That include groups of citizens, whether they be unions, political parties, the ACLU, environmental groups, business corporations, Tea Party protesters, or whatever. This is such a core principle of the USA that I can't believe even liberals have gotten it wrong, but judging from the comments, lots of them have. How sad.

What is a corporation, is it not a group of individuals banding together to form an enterprise?
The law treats a corporation just like and individual, and even worse so for tax purposes.

Unions are another group of individuals banding together, but you would never support suppression of the unions right to free speech, so how can you support the suppression of free speech by corporations, because you are a progressive stooge who can not accept the fact that liberty and freedom and wealth for all are exemplified by individuals acting in their own self interest and not government.

Your communistic beliefs have crashed and burned and killed millions where ever it has been tried, but for some reason you think it would be a good idea here, no way jose.

A couple of years ago, Exxon-Mobil racked up $44 BILLION in profits.

Average American family income is about $50,000. You know, before profits.

You conservatives are telling me that when it comes to how much speech can be purchased by an average American family….it's equal with, like, the amount of free speech Exxon Mobil can buy.

That's the ruling. Unlimited corporate purchases of MSM time is equal, in every way, to the average citizen's, for which the free speech right was written.

King believes that it's a core principle of the U.S. for multi-billion dollar profit corporations to monopolize our media-political process…basically purchasing all the elected officials a corporation would ever need. King sees that as a basic American value.

Odd.

So money is speech? Doesn't it say in the constitution that congress should make no law abridging the freedom of speech?

dd20,
1. "human beings" may not be in the Constitution but "people" is. I would accept that as equivalent,
3. No, it doesn't mean that at all. Robert's views on this subject were well known before his confirmation and he perjured himself during the hearings by claiming neutrality on the subject. It should also be troubling to anyone looking objectively that Roberts chose this case instead of letting it proceed through lower courts as normal.
4. You are absolutely right about the amount of money raised. But where do you think it came from? It should be obvious that existing campaign finance laws are too weak rather than too strong.
5,5,6. (Your numbering system has me confused) See 4. All of the problems you cite will be worsened by this ruling.

Mr. King,
During the Bush years, those exercising their right to free speech were routinely rounded up and confined in cages miles from from GWB's sensitive ears. Did you ever call Bush a Nazi? You are not a stupid man. Surely you cannot believe that this ruling was narrowly confined to whether Citizens United could air their film.

Mr. bzzzp,
I find it ironic that after years of those on the right complaining of activist judges legislating from the bench, that it is those on the right in the Supreme Court that offers up this radical ruling in the face of judicial restraint and over 100 years of precedent. You are right to wonder what happened to checks and balances. I would say that Congress has been abdicating its responsibilities to the Executive branch for about 100 years rather than upset their Party leaders or the wealthy contributors they rely on for continuing incumbency.

Mr. King again,
Corporations are not people, much less citizens. People join organizations such as the tea party protesters for the specific purpose of expressing their political opinions and will contribute or withhold their money accordingly. This is the sole purpose of these organizations. Money accumulated and used by corporations is derived from either investors seeking a profit or consumers purchasing a service or product. Neither investor nor consumer turn their money over to corporations for political purposes.

Mr. Jeff,
Yes, a corporation is a group of individuals banding together for an enterprise. But unlike individuals, it comes into existence only through state charter, and as such, is limited by the state. Your second sentence is contradictory. You state that the law treats individuals and corporations equally and then note that they are taxed at different rates. One could cite many more differences. Before this ruling, unions were restricted. Any member could demand that their dues not be used for political purposes.
Your ad hominem attack on the Rev's "communist beliefs" is absurd. A communist would advocate for government ownership of all corporations. Has the Rev ever advocated that? You seem to have a problem with the definition of the "isms" you find everywhere and rail about. When government and business interests merge, it is called fascism.

For all who can see no problem with corporate money in the political process, I would point to the health care debacle that has been unfolding. It began with Obama making a deal that ensured increasing profits for pharmaceutical companies and caving on anything that would have inhibited the profits of the insurance industry. Our Congresspeople then stripped anything that threatened their campaign donors. In the end, "reform" which at first commanded 70% public approval satisfies no one except the very industries which are affected. Can anyone think that corporate campaign money didn't outweigh the public interest? However, if you still think that this is about "free speech", tell your boss what you really think of him/her and see what the corporation thinks of your "free speech".

Corporations have been people for over 100 years of precedent, frank. And do you think the "boss" to political speech analogy is really an apt one? You seem to be moving the goal posts here and there, and I find your authoritarian vision of American government to be nightmarish.

Thanks, frank.

Corporations can't vote. I wonder why that is? Because conservatives, and the Rogue Roberts Court, are telling me that corporations are equal under the law with individual citizens. If that's true, then, when will our government quit acting prejudicially towards corporations? When will corporations be given their equal right to vote? Who will stand, patriotically, hands over hearts, for the Christ-resembling oppressed corporations, who only want to be freed from their bondage by the people.?

That's what I really think of the recent ruling.

Frank,

I see your 100 years of precedent and I raise you the 218 years that the first amendment has been part of the Constitution.

Mr. bzzzzp,
I'll call. Where in the first amendment does it mention corporations?

larry d.,
The ruling granting personhood to corporations was among the worst in history. During catechism classes of my youth, I was taught that what distinguishes man from animal is his soul. I'm surprised religious leaders haven't described this ruling equating man made corporations with God's supreme creation as blasphemy.
I suppose my analogy may seem thin, but I was trying to point out that corporations are not interested in free speech, but in using government to increase their profits. I would also point out the practical consideration that individual members of the corporation already have freedom of speech, and that the corporation's "free speech" is wielded by a select few using corporate funds as if it were their own.
I suppose you are just employing your snarky "writing style", but please explain my "authoritarian vision of American government" which gives you nightmares. If you think that preventing corporate cash from dominating political discourse is authoritarian, you are living in Orwell's 1984.

Your analogy is nightmarish, frank. Your parallel suggests that political speech is not free in the same manner that one cannot insult their boss for risk of being fired. That is an authoritarian view of government, to be sure. It is precisely the nightmare scenario that the First Amendment at its core seeks to prevent.

Do you think the government should be able to search the premises of the local ACLU or ACORN office without cause or warrants? What is the basis for those organization's constitutional protections if they are not treated as persons to some extent?

frank says, "Mr. King,
During the Bush years, those exercising their right to free speech were routinely rounded up and confined in cages miles from from GWB's sensitive ears."

Yes. We call them terrorists and prisoners of war. I'm pretty sure Bush didn't invent the concept of rounding them up. And frank, terrorists are not engaging in "free speech." They are killing people. I hope that distinction is not lost on you, as it seems to be.

frank says, "Mr. King again,
Corporations are not people, much less citizens…Neither investor nor consumer turn their money over to corporations for political purposes."

frank, you've achieved true liberal-hood. First, you say terrorists are engaging in free speech, and then you say people representing corporations should have no free speech. Everything exactly backwards and 100% wrong. Unreal.

And to all liberals on this thread – if corporations are not made up of people, what are the made up of, bunny rabbits ? C'mon now, folks. Y'all are really grabbing at straws. The first amendment say free speech shall not be infringed. It doesn't say free speech shall not be infringed except for corporations.

frank,

Let's follow your logic a bit further. Would you suggest that a coproration did not have the rights to freedom of the press? Do we need a warrent for a search of a corporation? Can we take the property of a corporation without due process?

Apologies for not checking spelling.

And to larry for repeating one of his points.

larry d.,
Once again you've demonstrated your reading comprehension problems. I explained what I meant, yet you continue to read nightmarish scenarios into what I said. But I'll repeat. Corporations are not interested in free speech.
For your second paragraph, the answer is no, of course. Once again I have never suggested such things. But the basis for their constitutional protections is not found in any imaginary personhood, but in the charters granted by the state.

Mr. King,
Those "terrorists and prisoners of war" are American citizens who had the audacity of protesting the president's policies when he appeared in public. When Bush came to town, the Secret Service would round up protestors, transport them away from the motorcade route, and place them in pens until Bush's motorcade passed.
And just because a corporation is made up of people (among many other things), doesn't make it a person any more than a pork chop being made of pork makes it a pig. When people join to form a corporation, they agree to abide by the terms of its charter and the laws of the state, they are not giving birth.
The first amendment does say that free speech shall not be infringed but the courts have ruled that such laws as a prohibition against yelling Fire! in a crowded theater are not an infringement. Likewise, as Andrea wrote, prohibitions against campaigning too close to voting booths is not an infringement. But no where in the first amendment (or the rest of the Constitution) does it mention a right of free speech for corporations.

Mr. bzzzzp,
As I said to larry d., those rights are spelled out in the charters that businesses agree to operate under. By the way, Bush issued executive orders that said he could dispense with search warrants and seize people's property (among other violations of the Bill of Rights) if he wanted to. All he had to do was declare them as supporters of terrorism, with or without cause. If corporations were people, I suppose the same would apply to them.

frank, you explicitly asked what I found nightmarish about your initial post and the very clear parallel you made between government/free speech and boss/insubordination, so I explained how such a comparison might make most Americans a little leery of your demagoguery. Now that you understand what you initially wrote, you should thank me rather than get all pissy about it.

Feelings could get hurt and we don't want you to go away again.

larry d.,
Thanks for explaining to me what I meant. I do have to go away for awhile, for reasons I've previously stated. Oops, wait. I get it now. I now realize that when I previously stated my reasons, I really meant that my feelings were hurt, and I had to go away and lick my wounds. I can only hope one day to approach your level of incisiveness.

frank,
lots of errors in your logic.

No, people are not free to yell 'fire !' in a crowded theater, but that is a public safety issue (as with the Bush protesters having a designated area). A political ad from a corporation (or a union, citizen's group, etc) is not even close to the same thing. Those ads ARE free speech, and we can't pick and choose which groups are allowed to express them. For example, one big corporation, GE/NBC, can air all the political material they want, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, yet you are trying to say other corporations should be excluded completely. That doesn't fly in America. The government can't say 'this group of Americans gets free speech and this group doesn't.' That's the stuff of tyrants and dictators. I think you'd come to understand this very quickly if it was YOUR group being denied freedom of speech.

Frank, it would be almost like taxing folks who didn't belong to groups that supported the President during the election, such as unions, while not taxing those who did.

Oh wait.

Mr. King,
Bush protestors penned up for public safety! With that kind of reach, you should have been a boxer. How can you forgive every other administration for their blatant disregard of public safety? But, seriously, thank you, it's not every day that I get such a good laugh.
By the way, the reason that GE/NBC or Fox, or any other corporation can air all the political material they want unchallenged is because Reagan's FCC eliminated the Fairness Doctrine. Do you want that restored?
This ruling does nothing to guarantee free speech. On the contrary, it simply allows an elite minority to use vast sums of money (not even their own) to purchase the instruments to dominate and drown out competing voices. For those without the resources to compete, it will be like trying to have a conversation while in the front row of a Metallica concert.

Corporations once had only privileges. Today they have (on very shaky legal ground, specifically constitutional law shakiness) rights.

What is a right? Why have them? Rights exist to help balance the power between an individual person, and the groups that people can cooperate to form. Rights protect us from certain abuses by government: right of due process, right of liberty. What we commonly think of as the right to 'freedom of religion' is more specifically a right designed to protect people from organized religions getting into government and abusing power. Constitutional rights were codified to try to keep power balanced, so that man the individual would not be so helpless before man-the-group, in all the many forms groups of men organize themselves into: religion, government, corporation, union, trades, and so forth.

When corporations had only privileges, states could pass any law regarding them. Most did, especially regarding corporate donations to politicians. Specifically, allowing NONE. And yet this country did alright for it's first 100 years that way. We didn't fail, we weren't taken over by 'communists'. In fact, this is a clear example of power in the hands of the states instead of the federal government. And that's what the states did. Granted corporations privileges only, no rights.

The country wasn't overtaken in those times. We weren't overrun financially. So, apparently, it can be done. 'It' being, corporate legal non-personhood. Corporations claim they have rights because they are 'persons', and the 14th amendment (you know, the one designed to re-affirm the rights of newly freed slaves?) guarantees equal protection to 'persons' under the law.

This debate is about way more than free speech. It is about whether we let 'corporations' keep claiming rights that were never intended to be for corporate protections. It seems many people arguing that corporations need rights, including 'free speech', have never heard that corporations haven't always had them, nor why they didn't always have them, or what specifically has happened since they got them. People fear that corporations, with their very useful economic functions, would be destroyed if they didn't have all the rights they claim today.

They didn't have them until about 1886. They didn't 'need' them before then, and they don't need them now. We can grow large businesses that make very healthy profits and create millions of jobs without corporations having access to human rights.

But when the law allows corporations to claim them, some corporations will. Human rights are supposed to be able to help balance the power a relatively weak human has from the massive power corporations (and any other organized group of people) have. They cannot do this when corporations can claim these rights too.

Does this make sense according to the design of our laws and constitution? Does it work better for what people collectively want? I'm including the want to eat, survive, have a home to live in, clothes to wear, pursuit of happiness, life, liberty etc. Are humans overall better off when corporations (that are supposed to be the tools of humans, not their masters) claim the protections of human rights – or when they can't?

Oh yeah, Rev, have you read "Unequal Protection"? Just wondering.

Excellent evaluation of the situation Jacquie. What you say about corporate "privileges" is also true of religion, at least Big Christian religion. Over the years, religion has been granted privileges they do not deserve…..government funding, "In God We Trust", "faith-based goverment initiatives, etc. It's the same with corporations, as you pointed out.

No, haven't read "Unequal Protection." Tell me more.

Ms. Jacquie,
Excellent post! Thom Hartmann has the knack to explain these concepts in relatively easy to understand terms. He also has what I consider the best radio talk show. He has interesting guests and treats them with respect, even when he disagrees with them. Hope to read more contributions from you.

Unequal Protection is a superlative explanation of the Corporate Personhood debate. I used to think there was no such thing as having a government that could work in practice, even mostly. All the tremendous abuses of the law, all the severe corruption – how could people fight when the other guy is always bigger?

I never even seriously considered there might be an actual logical answer for that. This book showed me one. Of particular note are the parallels between corporations and religion. Religion isn't abuse free, that's for sure, but in practice, it is NOTHING compared to what it has been and done throughout recorded history. Nothing. Nothing beats the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, witch hunts, and a zillion other ways every kind of church used to use power to torture and kill people. That hasn't really been seen since this country set up separation of church and state. Churches do bad, bad things (of course, along with good ones) but there is a valid difference between what they have been able to accomplish in the last 225 years and what they used to be able to. And it's not because people believe in God or Church less strongly nowadays, or that churches have less money. It is a legal distinction. One that works, as unbelievable to a cynic as it may be.

Religions don't do the devastating harm they once did, but we didn't have to outlaw religion to achieve this. No one has to hide their religious beliefs from the government; everyone may worship as they choose. Apparently, there exists an equally useful and beneficial way to curb the excesses of corporations as well. It once worked, but because we didn't encode it into the constitution, it didn't survive: No corporate 'personhood'.

Okay, this is getting overlong here, so I'll just refer you to the book. Really, you need to read it. Skim it at least. As Frank says, Thom Hartmann is a powerful explainer.

Thanks for the compliments. *bats eyes* I imagine I'll be getting some not-so-complimentary responses at some point, so it's nice to hear from people on the same page. (ugh, no pun intended)

Sorry to burst your bubble Jacquie but of course there are plenty of recent comparisons to the horrors of religion, and they come straight from governments. The Holocaust, Stalin's purges, Mao's purges, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc., etc. Even those events you place firmly as the responsibility of religion–the Inquisition, Crusades, etc.–cannot be separated from government.

Alright, Larry, I'll bite. About recent horrors – I only said there are no recent (mass death) horrors caused by separate-from-government religions. That the Holocaust happened doesn't have anything to do with separation of church and state. And I certainly didn't say, and don't think, religion is the only kind of grouping of people capable of horrors. Many kinds of groups cause them.

The 'events [I] place firmly as the responsibility of religion' that cannot be separated from government – why yes. Very good. Religion that gets into bed with government becomes a terrifying force. Religion that stays out of government doesn't become a threat to life and limb. I'm not accusing religion of being inherently bad. It becomes atrocious when it mixes with a government, any government. Of any kind, in any place.

You stated that NOTHING compares to the atrocities the church has committed throughout history, Jacquie. I was simply correcting that incorrect statement so there's nothing to bite on. It seems to me the common denominator in historic atrocities is government and government alone.