Your "not people" slogan (which you can't explain) says they have no 1st Amendment rights because they're a corporation and all corporations have no 1st Amendment rights -- you've repeated over and over. Instead of telling us what you did not say, why don't you explain what you did say, which is that corporations should not and do not have free-speech rights. And so why doesn't that apply to a corporation like the ACLU? You can't give a straightforward answer to that?
You’re arguing against a strawman you invented. “Corporations are not people” is shorthand for one narrow point, corporate status does not entitle an entity to the full political rights of a human voter.
Straight answer about the ACLU. The ACLU can speak. No one is trying to gag it. What it can’t demand is the same election spending freedom as a human, because a chartered entity is a state-enabled power tool, limited liability, perpetual life, and pooled capital, and the state can condition that tool to protect elections from domination and corruption.
So yes, the ACLU has speech rights. No, it is not “people.” And your binary trap is fake. The law has never worked as “either full human rights or zero rights,” and you know it.
t's no more "state-created" than a naturalized citizen is created by the state, granting to him/her "citizenship" status. Or than a traveler is created by being granted a passport to travel legally, or than a driver is created by being issued a driver's license. Or than an indigenous tribe is created by gaining legal recognition. Or than a college graduate is created by that college, or a commissioned officer is created by the Army or Navy. The gov't does not CREATE us by granting us a certain status. Recognizing the status of someone who already exists and already has importance is not to "create" them. All of us (including all groups) are "people" having the same basic 1st Amendment rights, regardless whether the gov't grants some ceremonial status or certification or recognition to make it official. Being given official acknowledgement to something you already are does not CREATE you.
You need to stop your clandestine scheming to change someone you don't like into "not people" so you can deprive them of their 1st Amendment rights and shut them up using your thugs in the FEC (or other gov't agency) to censor them or ban their propaganda. Stop looking for excuses to ban someone's political speech. The Court rightly overruled you and your thugs who banned that film back in 2008, and you're a fool to think you can deprive your political enemy of such basic rights by simply branding them as "not people" and artificial creations of the state.
You’re mixing up two totally different things. Naturalization, a passport, or a driver’s license changes the legal status of an already existing human being. Incorporation is different because it creates a new legal person that did not exist before as a separate rights and duties bearing entity. The pre existing group is real, sure, but the corporation as a distinct juridical person is the state’s product. Limited liability, perpetual life, and entity level ownership are not “ceremonial recognition.” They are legal powers the state manufactures and enforces.
And stop pretending this is about “silencing enemies.” People are not arguing that the ACLU or anyone else should be gagged. The argument is about whether a state chartered power tool should get the same election spending permissions as a human voter. That’s a democracy design question, not a free speech purity test.
Also, be accurate about the facts. The dispute was about whether federal campaign finance rules could restrict a corporation from paying for certain electioneering broadcasts close to an election. That is not the same as the federal government “banning political films” in American history. It is a narrow campaign finance restriction that the Court struck down for independent expenditures while keeping disclosure and disclaimers. So your “either full human rights or Soviet censorship” framing is a fake binary, and it’s not an argument.
No, if that were true, everyone would form a corporation and acquire their windfall treasury from the state. FACT: Anyone can form a corporation (so it's not a privilege reserved for a few), and everyone would incorporate if the state granted such a "treasury" privilege to all corporations. 99% of corporations have no such "treasury" as you imagine. Stop hallucinating "treasuries" which don't exist, and pretending that they were conferred by the state on this boogeyman you wrongly label "corporations." There's no such thing. Most corporations are poor, by any reasonable measure. They were poor before they incorporated, and they remained poor after.
Again you’re arguing against a strawman I didn’t make. “Treasury” doesn’t mean the state hands out free money. It means the corporation has its own pool of assets legally separate from the humans behind it, protected by limited liability and continuity, and that pool can be used to fund political spending even when most shareholders or employees never consented to that specific message.
And “anyone can incorporate” doesn’t erase privilege. “Open to all” doesn’t mean “equal in effect.” Anyone can form a shell company, but not everyone can concentrate billions inside one, enjoy limited liability, accumulate forever, and then deploy that money at scale in elections. The rule changes the ceiling, and only the biggest players hit the ceiling.
Finally, “most corporations are small” is irrelevant. Election rules aren’t written for the corner dry cleaner. They’re written for the entities that can realistically dominate the information environment. Pretending this is about mom and pop is just cover for the handful that actually move elections with money.
No, there are ways to acquire all those without forming a corporation. I've already listed examples of non-corporate entities which also provide these: LLPs, LLCs, trusts, foundations, different kinds of partnerships, sole proprietorships. (I quoted references to these in
#297 last September.) Do you also say that foundations and trusts and partnerships are "not people"? How many more kinds of group entities do you banish to the "not people" category? which perform the same functions as corporations?
No, this has nothing to do with limited liability or perpetual life etc. -- that's just your phony rhetoric to justify your hate speech against something you mislabel as "corporations" -- this hate speech is your radical Leftists' rallying cry to whip up hysteria among the mindless masses looking for a scapegoat to blame -- so you give them this "corporation" scapegoat language. You're just trying to manipulate these mindless masses by feeding them your Marxist class warfare pigslop, to strengthen your own political clique seeking more votes in order to seize power.
You just proved my point and didn’t notice. Yes, the same logic applies to any artificial entity that exists only because the law recognizes it as a separate legal actor, whether it is a corporation, an LLC, an LLP, a foundation, or a trust. None of those things are a human being. They don’t vote. They don’t go to jail. They don’t have a conscience. They are legal tools humans use.
So when I say not people, I mean exactly that. Not natural persons. That does not mean they have zero rights. It means whatever rights they get are derivative and instrumental, granted to protect real people’s activities, and they can be conditioned when the state has created special machinery that concentrates wealth, shields liability, and lasts indefinitely.
Calling that “hate speech” is just you dodging the substance. This is not about banning speech. It is about whether the Constitution forces us to treat a state-enabled wealth container exactly like a human citizen for election spending. It doesn’t. If you want to argue otherwise, drop the insults and explain why a legal instrument must have the same political spending rights as a voter even when it exists only because the state grants it that separate legal power.
I.e., censorship in one form or another, whatever can be used to silence and shut down voices you disagree with. But you'll choose your words carefully to hide your real ultimate intention to suppress their free speech.
That’s pure mind-reading and it’s wrong.
I’m not arguing to silence anyone. I’m arguing to regulate election spending so actual citizens aren’t politically outbid by state-created money vehicles. People still speak, publish, organize, endorse, and donate within limits. The First Amendment is about protecting speakers from government punishment for speech, not guaranteeing any entity an unlimited paid megaphone in the middle of an election.
You keep trying to reframe “set rules for electioneering spending by artificial entities” as “ban ideas.” That’s a dodge. If you can’t defend unlimited election spending on the merits, you yell “censorship” and pretend the debate is over. It isn’t.
yes, carefully chosen innocent-sounding words (which ultimately mean censorship and banning free speech as far as you're able to get away with it). And your power clique will provide the interpretations for applying this censorship where it's appropriate for the good of the masses, your flock, which need to be controlled and fed what you know is wholesome fodder for them.
I’m not asking anyone to “ban speech” or decide what’s “wholesome.” I’m talking about rules on paid electioneering, the same way we already have rules on bribery, coordination, disclosure, and contribution limits. You can still say anything you want. You just don’t get an unlimited, legally-shielded corporate treasury to dominate an election because you can afford more ads.
And here’s the tell. You keep treating “money used to buy reach” as identical to “speech.” They’re not identical in practice, and the law already recognizes that by allowing limits on contributions and coordination. So drop the sermon about “power cliques” and answer the real question.
Do you believe there should be any democratic limit at all on paid electioneering influence, yes or no. If your answer is no, then own it plainly instead of pretending everyone who disagrees is secretly plotting book burnings.
No, never that. Just trust you and your political elite who promise to never abuse this censorship power you demand in order for the elections to be "fair" and all voices kept absolutely equal, so that the truth you know is best for us is kept pure and untainted.
But why should we trust you and your elitist election reformers? Before your 2002 election reform law was overturned by the Court, what were the "guardrails" which actually were added? A FILM WAS BANNED! Outright naked censorship and denial of free speech, despite your rhetoric that it's not that. Banning a political propaganda film is what you used your electioneering restriction power for. How much more political speech do you intend to ban once you get your electioneering communications prohibitions re-enacted?
Hate radio talk-show host Thom Hartmann wants more censorship -- he preaches everyday that someone out there (who he cannot name) needs to be banned from their propagandizing because it's unfair to Progressive candidates (of course he never says "banned" -- he knows that's politically incorrect), and so Citizens United must be overturned and tougher censorship applied to silence his political targets (he obviously never admits that it's "censorship" he intends -- but that's what it was back in 2008, and he vehemently rages against the Court decision which overturned that FEC censorship).
If you're honest that it's not to censor and ban free speech (as it was in 2008), then you'll bring yourself to acknowledge that the Citizens United decision was right, and that it should not be overturned. Do you have the honesty to make that acknowledgement? Pundit Hartmann doesn't have that honesty.
You’re still playing the same shell game, pretending any rule you dislike is “Soviet censorship” and anyone who disagrees is “thugs” and “elites.” That’s not an argument, it’s a meltdown.
Here are the actual facts. The law wasn’t a roving federal power to ban political books and films. It was the BCRA rule on “electioneering communications,” defined as broadcast, cable, or satellite communications naming a federal candidate inside a 30 day primary window or 60 day general window, funded from corporate or union general treasuries.
We’ve gone through this already!
And it was not “the first time in history the federal government censored political propaganda.” Federal law had regulated corporate money in federal elections for over a century, including bans on corporate contributions and later restrictions on corporate-funded electioneering and independent spending. You’re trying to rewrite history so your one movie talking point can do all the work.
Citizens United did not just “reaffirm what always existed.” It overruled Austin and part of McConnell and struck down the federal ban on corporate independent expenditures and electioneering communications, while leaving the ban on direct corporate contributions in place and upholding disclosure and disclaimers. That is a legal change, not a vibes-based “restoration.”
Your “trust the elite” rant also collapses because nobody is asking for a ministry of truth. The mainstream reform position is about limiting election spending power and strengthening transparency and anti-corruption rules, not banning ideas. You can disagree with that on principle, but stop lying about what it is.
So no, your “film was banned therefore all guardrails equal tyranny” conclusion doesn’t follow. What you actually have is one regulated distribution channel in a narrow election window under a specific statute, and a Supreme Court that chose to constitutionalize corporate independent spending. Dress it up however you want, but the record is what it is.
No, your flowery language cannot hide the real meaning which was shown by your thugs (your political Party enforcing your "guardrails") when they banned that film. Don't pretend it means something other than the raw censorship which the Court overturned but which you're defending. When you resort to banning and censorship in fact and deed, we can see the real meaning -- we don't need your fancy language to disguise it as something heroic -- (who did you learn this manipulating rhetorical trick from? -- Trump University maybe?) If you're honest claiming that you choose free speech instead, you'll admit that the Citizens United decision overruling the FEC was the right decision, and that this should not be overturned.
A film was banned! the rest is fancy words to try to justify that free-speech suppression, and disguise it, and bring back more of the same.
You’re trying to win by slogan, not by facts. The film wasn’t “banned” in the way you keep implying. The issue was a narrow, time-window restriction on using corporate treasury money to fund certain broadcast style electioneering communications right before an election, under a statute Congress passed. Citizens United could still speak in other ways and the Court still upheld disclosure and disclaimer rules. Calling that “raw censorship” is a deliberately loaded retelling.
And no, it wasn’t “my party thugs.” The FEC is a bipartisan commission enforcing federal law. You can hate the law, but pretending it was a partisan hit squad is fantasy.
Most importantly, your “if you’re honest you’ll admit the decision was right” move is just emotional blackmail. Reasonable people can oppose that restriction and still think Citizens United went too far by constitutionalizing unlimited independent expenditures from corporate treasuries. Those are separate judgments. Your movie chant doesn’t collapse the debate into a single word, and repeating “A film was banned” doesn’t make your framing correct.
What's that? your alternative scheme for campaign funding? The more convoluted you make it, the more likely it's just more buzzwords to mask what you really want, which is raw censorship or banning of political propaganda, like you did back in 2008.
So rather than spicing it up with more nice-sounding election reform fanciness about the most ideally pure and "fair" system which should please everyone, how about a plain-language commitment: No more censorship! (like your gang wrongly did in 2008). Add this no-nonsense qualifier: no more banning of anything -- films, books, videos, recordings. Everyone rich and poor, big and small, must be free to spend whatever they want, as much as they want, on any political propaganda of any kind, no matter what! no matter when! even in an election year. Make it straightforward in unmistakable non-tricky language -- I.e., never again may our Federal Gov't ban speech (which isn't criminal or treasonous). Especially political or controversial speech. (The 2008 FEC action against Citizens United Inc. is the first time in history that the federal gov't banned political speech. We should make sure it remains the only time.)
You really oppose "stripping" free speech from anyone? then just say it straight out, in whatever reform measure you propose -- Absolutely no censorship or banning of anything political, by a federal agency, including in an election period, including the FEC misuse of its power in 2008. This includes no prohibition of spending by someone (including any group of any kind) -- anyone rich or poor -- on their own political propaganda crusade, including a crusade to trash any candidate they think is rotten -- they're entitled to hate that candidate and try to bring him/her crashing to the ground if that's their sentiment.
Put that qualifier at the top of your election reform plan, to make it clear that it's not about censorship --no censorship can be allowed. Admit that the FEC was wrong in 2008 when it banned that film; acknowledge that this was a perversion, a distortion of true election reform, and a violation of the Constitutional protection of free speech.
You’re not arguing the issue anymore, you’re running a loop.
First, stop calling it the first time in history the federal government suppressed political speech. That’s flatly false. The federal government criminally punished political speech long before 2008, including under the Sedition Act of 1798 and under World War I era enforcement upheld by the Supreme Court.
Second, the thing you keep dramatizing as a “ban” was a specific statutory restriction on corporate and union treasury funded electioneering broadcasts close to an election, and the Citizens United ruling struck that restriction down. That is a change in law, not some timeless principle being “restored.”
Third, your absolutist slogan no censorship no limits ever would also wipe out contribution limits, foreign national limits, and a lot of other election law that courts have repeatedly allowed. So don’t pretend your position is just “the First Amendment as written.” It’s your personal absolutism.
Finally, you keep trying to turn “corporations are not people” into “the ACLU has no rights.” Nobody said that. The point is simpler and you keep dodging it because it’s harder to answer. A corporation is not a human being, and the state created tools that let it aggregate wealth, persist indefinitely, and deploy a treasury that is not equivalent to any one member’s voice. That’s why equal treatment in election spending is not a neutral “free speech” stance. It’s a choice to let institutional treasury power dominate individual political equality.
So here’s the end of it. You support unlimited treasury spending in elections and you’re dressing it up as “free speech.” I reject that and I’m not proposing to erase groups’ rights. Drop the Hillary movie theatrics and argue the actual rule Citizens United changed.
No, it's not a privilege! It's a RIGHT for anyone, no matter who, no matter how much you hate them. It's their right to publish any political propaganda, as much as they can/want to pay for. In any form (as long as it's not a donation to a candidate's campaign). Citizens United did not eliminate the limits on donations. Be satisfied with that! and stop scheming to censor something out there being published by someone you hate. Everyone rich and poor is entitled to crusade all they want against any political power-seeker they hate. If they find a way to trash some candidate and destroy their career, SO BE IT! that's their right -- their God-given right. And you have an equal right to publish anything you want to oppose that propaganda or debunk it.
Thom Hartmann still continues daily to tell the same lies about Citizens United. He NEVER acknowledges that it was about overruling the FEC suppression of that film. He has alluded slightly to it about twice, since my survey ended weeks ago. But during that survey, which continued about 3 months, his score was above 50-0 -- 50 times mentioning the case as a ruling to grant corporations the right to bribe politicians, and never once -- ZERO times -- admitting that it was a free-speech case to protect a company from the FEC's attack on its free-speech rights under the 1st Amendment.
If he was honest, he'd acknowledge that the FEC did overstep the proper boundaries, that it did abridge the rights of that company, and that the Court's decision to overrule it was necessary, because election reform must not be something misused to impose censorship onto ANYONE, no matter how hated they might be, and no matter how popular the hate-slogan might be. Even the popular cliché "corporations are not people" ought not be used as a sleight-of-hand device to deny someone their 1st Amendment rights, as "Progressives" are now misusing it in their stampede to overturn Citizens United.
Why can't the Left be honest this once and just admit that in this case the Court was right, that the FEC did have to be overruled? Why can't a Left-winger ("Progressive") make this acknowledgement?
The ACLU has acknowledged it.
ACLU supports Citizens United ruling:
free speech for all groups (including corporations)
You’re doing three sleights of hand at once.
First, you keep swapping the question. Nobody is debating whether people can speak. The dispute is whether the state should treat a limited liability money pooling vehicle as identical to a voter for election influence. Citizens United answered one slice of that by striking down the federal ban on corporate and union treasury spending for electioneering and independent expenditures, while keeping disclosure and disclaimer rules and leaving the ban on direct corporate contributions in place.
Second, your “first time in history” censorship claim is flat wrong. The federal government criminalized and prosecuted political criticism long before 2008, like the Sedition Act making it a crime to publish “false, scandalous, and malicious” writing against the government and prosecuting newspaper editors.
So stop pretending 2008 invented federal suppression of political speech.
Third, you’re laundering your conclusion through the ACLU. What’s true is the ACLU argued that the specific BCRA provision at issue was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
That does not magically convert your broader demand into “anything goes forever, no regulation, no guardrails, and anyone who disagrees hates free speech.”
And the Hartmann scorekeeping is a distraction. Even if every pundit on earth described the case poorly, that wouldn’t change what the decision did or what the real argument is.
NHC
So all the SCOTUS needed to do to get the right answer was rule that Citizens United qualified as a media corporation and was therefore exempt.
