Corporations are People?

[NoHolyCows]

Everything he's brought up has already been addressed and shown to him to be false. Lumpy doesn't address the points others have made, he just repeats, at great length, his first points and claims he won.

He's by far the most disingenuous debater on this forum. Dunning Kruger in real life. He's not here to learn. He's here to pontificate.

Exactly this. Every time someone breaks down Citizens United, the history it overturned, or the distinction between natural persons and legal entities, he dodges it completely. Then, a few posts later, he repeats the same questions as if no one ever answered them, wrapped in new verbosity and false analogies.

At this point, it’s not ignorance—it’s deliberate evasion. He’s not here to engage, he’s here to filibuster the thread into exhaustion so he can claim victory by attrition. Classic Dunning-Kruger: confident volume over actual comprehension. And every time someone points that out, he claims persecution, not correction.

The most telling part? He still hasn’t quoted Citizens United, hasn’t explained what it overturned, and hasn’t addressed why granting constitutional political rights to a treasury-funded legal fiction is a democratic problem. Because he can’t. He’s not debating—he’s narrating.

NHC

 

[ZiprHead]

Even if that's true in some cases (NOT MOST cases of corporations), there are rules limiting that influence regardless of Citizens United. This case did not eliminate regulation of megacorps or their influence on elections. Even if it modified some regulations, plenty of those rules remain, to control the influence on elections, because megacorps like individual humans are "people" which society regulates as needed. Even after this case there are regulations, exerted by Congress and the Executive. The Court ruling was only that the censorship is not the right form of regulation, as it violates the 1st Amendment.

Can you state some of those regulations so we can check your work.

 

[bilby]

Everything he's brought up has already been addressed and shown to him to be false. Lumpy doesn't address the points others have made, he just repeats, at great length, his first points and claims he won.

He's by far the most disingenuous debater on this forum. Dunning Kruger in real life. He's not here to learn. He's here to pontificate.

Exactly this. Every time someone breaks down Citizens United, the history it overturned, or the distinction between natural persons and legal entities, he dodges it completely. Then, a few posts later, he repeats the same questions as if no one ever answered them, wrapped in new verbosity and false analogies.

At this point, it’s not ignorance—it’s deliberate evasion. He’s not here to engage, he’s here to filibuster the thread into exhaustion so he can claim victory by attrition. Classic Dunning-Kruger: confident volume over actual comprehension. And every time someone points that out, he claims persecution, not correction.

The most telling part? He still hasn’t quoted Citizens United, hasn’t explained what it overturned, and hasn’t addressed why granting constitutional political rights to a treasury-funded legal fiction is a democratic problem. Because he can’t. He’s not debating—he’s narrating.

NHC

It's easy to tell when he is unsure of his position - just count the words.

When he is justified in an opinion, he's as succinct as the next man, but when he's not, he tries to bury his uncertainty under a mountain of irrelevant and repetitive verbiage.

 

[unapologetic]

I have lost interest in this thread.

To me the issue is
'Can a corporation be allowed to buy influnce in an election?'

I say NO.

 

[SLD]

I’m late to this but thought I thought I’d add a historical note about how this happened. The idea of corporations as people arose, not from any notion of giving them rights, but of how they can be sued or sue, and more specifically where, I.e. jurisdiction. In the 18th century when the Constitution was written, the concept of corporations as people was certainly not considered. Corporations were still nascent and while stock markets existed, they were just getting started, and mass stock ownership was virtually nonexistent.

When the founders drafted Article III of the country, the judiciary, they wanted to keep the courts of limited jurisdiction and let the states handle most common law cases. Thus jurisdiction was limited, in particular to citizens of a different state. Thus living in Alabama, I can’t sue another Alabamian for breach of contract, unless it’s under a specific federal statute. I have to use the state courts. But if you live in Georgia, I can go to federal court as long as the matter exceeds $100,000. Simple enough, but what if you do two people, one of whom is a citizen of your state? The answer is that complete diversity is required. You have to go to state courts.

But in the 18th century, really the early 19th century, this created problems when corporations became more prominent. Can you sue a corporation or just all the stockholders? Or the managers? And soon enough, complete diversity became impossible because one could always find a citizen of your state who was a stockholder and say, complete diversity is broken and thus no federal jurisdiction.

Ultimately the courts decided that a corporation was a “citizen” of the state where it was incorporated, and the stockholders, being personally immune from suit, were considered irrelevant for such purposes and that a corporation could be sued in its own name in any jurisdiction in which it did business. Voila. Corporations are now people. If a corporation is incorporated in Delaware and your from California, you can sue them in California for a simple tort or breach of contract and go to Federal court. But the early Supreme Court decisions explicitly called them citizens as a “legal fiction.” They were only concerned with diversity jurisdiction. They did not recognize any right to personhood. It was only later that they began to be given certain rights first under the 14th Amendment and later more and more rights and power.

 

[SLD]

I have lost interest in this thread.

To me the issue is
'Can a corporation be allowed to buy influnce in an election?'

I say NO.

But it’s not so simple. You can’t say that they have no first amendment rights without taking away a whole bunch of other rights as well. Can they be searched without a warrant? Can they petition congress? Can they publish their opinions in the press? Do they have a right to a jury trial in civil suits? Do they have the right to form a religious organization? (most major churches are incorporated.)

 

[NoHolyCows]

I’m late to this but thought I thought I’d add a historical note about how this happened. The idea of corporations as people arose, not from any notion of giving them rights, but of how they can be sued or sue, and more specifically where, I.e. jurisdiction. In the 18th century when the Constitution was written, the concept of corporations as people was certainly not considered. Corporations were still nascent and while stock markets existed, they were just getting started, and mass stock ownership was virtually nonexistent.

When the founders drafted Article III of the country, the judiciary, they wanted to keep the courts of limited jurisdiction and let the states handle most common law cases. Thus jurisdiction was limited, in particular to citizens of a different state. Thus living in Alabama, I can’t sue another Alabamian for breach of contract, unless it’s under a specific federal statute. I have to use the state courts. But if you live in Georgia, I can go to federal court as long as the matter exceeds $100,000. Simple enough, but what if you do two people, one of whom is a citizen of your state? The answer is that complete diversity is required. You have to go to state courts.

But in the 18th century, really the early 19th century, this created problems when corporations became more prominent. Can you sue a corporation or just all the stockholders? Or the managers? And soon enough, complete diversity became impossible because one could always find a citizen of your state who was a stockholder and say, complete diversity is broken and thus no federal jurisdiction.

Ultimately the courts decided that a corporation was a “citizen” of the state where it was incorporated, and the stockholders, being personally immune from suit, were considered irrelevant for such purposes and that a corporation could be sued in its own name in any jurisdiction in which it did business. Voila. Corporations are now people. If a corporation is incorporated in Delaware and your from California, you can sue them in California for a simple tort or breach of contract and go to Federal court. But the early Supreme Court decisions explicitly called them citizens as a “legal fiction.” They were only concerned with diversity jurisdiction. They did not recognize any right to personhood. It was only later that they began to be given certain rights first under the 14th Amendment and later more and more rights and power.

This is exactly right. Corporate personhood started as a legal fiction—a practical tool to simplify lawsuits and jurisdiction, not to grant constitutional rights. Courts in the 19th century needed a clean way to treat corporations as unified entities so they could be sued, taxed, or held accountable. That’s a far cry from saying they’re entitled to political speech rights under the First Amendment, which came much later.

What Citizens United did was take that limited legal fiction and stretch it into full-blown constitutional identity, treating corporations as if they were rights-bearing citizens in the realm of elections. That leap—from legal convenience to political equality—is where the controversy lies. Because once you give a structure built to accumulate capital the same speech rights as a citizen, you tilt the balance of power away from people and toward institutions.

This historical context makes it even clearer: corporate personhood was never meant to make corporations “people” in any moral or civic sense—it was just paperwork logic. Citizens United turned it into constitutional policy. That’s the real problem.

NHC

 

[unapologetic]

But it’s not so simple. You can’t say that they have no first amendment rights without taking away a whole bunch of other rights as well. Can they be searched without a warrant? Can they petition congress? Can they publish their opinions in the press? Do they have a right to a jury trial in civil suits? Do they have the right to form a religious organization? (most major churches are incorporated.)

I don't see that any of those rights, applied to corporations, are based on the constitution.
Let organizations convince their members how to vote on their own dime. Not by bribing politicians.
Make organizations lobby with the weight of their voteing block of members.

 

[laughing dog]

I have lost interest in this thread.

To me the issue is
'Can a corporation be allowed to buy influnce in an election?'

I say NO.

I think no institution or person should be allowed to buy influence in an election.

I think most people agree with the sentiment but don’t agree about implemention.

 

[bilby]

I have lost interest in this thread.

To me the issue is
'Can a corporation be allowed to buy influnce in an election?'

I say NO.

I concur. There is no good reason to allow any entity, person or otherwise, to spend unlimited money on political campaigning.

The easiest solution is probably to set a (very low) limit on campaign spending of any kind, by anyone (or any thing).

Money isn't speech. Money is at best an amplifier. The US Constitution doesn't protect the right to blast the eardrums of your neighbors, nor to drown out their free speech with yours.

If you are using a bullhorn to ensure that I hear you (whether or not I want to listen), "It's OK, I paid for this bullhorn" is not a valid response to my request for some peace and quiet.

 

[NoHolyCows]

I concur. There is no good reason to allow any entity, person or otherwise, to spend unlimited money on political campaigning.

The easiest solution is probably to set a (very low) limit on campaign spending of any kind, by anyone (or any thing).

Money isn't speech. Money is at best an amplifier. The US Constitution doesn't protect the right to blast the eardrums of your neighbors, nor to drown out their free speech with yours.

If you are using a bullhorn to ensure that I hear you (whether or not I want to listen), "It's OK, I paid for this bullhorn" is not a valid response to my request for some peace and quiet.

Completely agree. The Constitution protects the right to speak—not the right to outspend everyone into silence. The idea that money is “speech” only holds if we ignore the structural inequality money creates in public discourse. When a billionaire or a corporation can spend millions saturating every media channel while ordinary citizens can barely afford a yard sign, that’s not free speech—it’s monopolized speech.

The analogy to a bullhorn is perfect. The First Amendment guarantees a voice, not a megaphone that drowns out every other voice. And no, paying for the megaphone doesn’t entitle you to monopolize the conversation.

Reasonable limits on campaign spending don’t silence anyone—they ensure everyone has a fair chance to be heard. And that’s what democratic speech should be about: not just the freedom to speak, but the freedom from being drowned out.

NHC

 

[SLD]

But it’s not so simple. You can’t say that they have no first amendment rights without taking away a whole bunch of other rights as well. Can they be searched without a warrant? Can they petition congress? Can they publish their opinions in the press? Do they have a right to a jury trial in civil suits? Do they have the right to form a religious organization? (most major churches are incorporated.)

I don't see that any of those rights, applied to corporations, are based on the constitution.
Let organizations convince their members how to vote on their own dime. Not by bribing politicians.
Make organizations lobby with the weight of their voteing block of members.

But those are all rights in the bill of rights. Of course they’re based on the constitution. The 4th amendment is for unreasonable search and seizures and the 7th amendment for jury trials and the first for the others including press and religion.

Now election funding is a different issue. But regardless of election funding, how do you stop a corporation from basically funding a shadow campaign for a specific congressman. They don’t have to give any money to him or his campaign to effectively do the same thing. Just run ads about how great he is. How would you stop that unless you said that they have no first amendment rights and if you say that how do you say they also have no 4th amendment rights? I’m not sure I want police forces able to go into any place of business and start searching without a warrant.

 

[bilby]

Now election funding is a different issue. But regardless of election funding, how do you stop a corporation from basically funding a shadow campaign for a specific congressman. They don’t have to give any money to him or his campaign to effectively do the same thing. Just run ads about how great he is. How would you stop that unless you said that they have no first amendment rights and if you say that how do you say they also have no 4th amendment rights?

By prohibiting the use of technology in political advertising.

You have the first amendment right to say how great Joe Schmoe would be as President, but you may not use a newspaper, loudhailer, TV broadcast, billboard, radio, pamphlet, or anything else apart from the larynx you were born with, to harangue your fellow citizens about Mr Schmoe's many virtues.

If you want to exercise free speech, get some exercise, and go speak to people.

TBH, I would like to see all advertising, not just political advertising, treated in the same way. You reckon I need to hear about your new treatment for haemorrhoids? If you don't prioritise that need enough to get off your arse and come tell me about it in person, then I don't agree.

If nothing else, such a scheme would provide loads of work for door-to-door salesmen. And would give the public a much needed right of reply.

 

[NoHolyCows]

But those are all rights in the bill of rights. Of course they’re based on the constitution. The 4th amendment is for unreasonable search and seizures and the 7th amendment for jury trials and the first for the others including press and religion.

Now election funding is a different issue. But regardless of election funding, how do you stop a corporation from basically funding a shadow campaign for a specific congressman. They don’t have to give any money to him or his campaign to effectively do the same thing. Just run ads about how great he is. How would you stop that unless you said that they have no first amendment rights and if you say that how do you say they also have no 4th amendment rights? I’m not sure I want police forces able to go into any place of business and start searching without a warrant.

You’re right—corporations have some rights under the Constitution, like 4th Amendment protections from unreasonable searches. But Citizens United specifically dealt with the 1st Amendment and political spending, which is different.

To stop a corporation from running a shadow campaign, you’d need new campaign finance laws that limit independent expenditures from any source. But because of Citizens United, those limits could be struck down—unless we pass a constitutional amendment clarifying that money isn’t speech and corporate political spending can be regulated. That’s the legal path.

NHC

 

[laughing dog]

I would have no issue with “shadow campaigns” as long as the sponsors are publicly identified. That means identifying donors to the sponsors.

 

[unapologetic]

But those are all rights in the bill of rights. Of course they’re based on the constitution.

You misread what I said. (perhaps I worded it poorly)
I said that I don't see that the constitution applys those rights to corporations/organizations.

how do you stop a corporation from basically funding a shadow campaign for a specific congressman. Just run ads about how great he is. How would you stop that?

I would encourage that. That is far better than giving money to a canidate, or his campaign, such that it influnces (bribes) his actions.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Google Search question:
What previous election law was overturned
by Citizens United?

Google answer:

The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case overturned two key election laws: the part of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission that allowed restrictions on corporations' electioneering communications, and the precedent set in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce which permitted prohibitions on independent expenditures by corporations. These laws had previously limited the ability of corporations to spend money on political advertising and advocacy during elections.

Elaboration:

• Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990):
  This case upheld a state law that prohibited corporations from using general treasury funds to support or oppose candidates in elections.
  
  
• McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003):
  This case upheld federal laws that restricted corporate and union spending on electioneering communications, particularly those that were broadcast, cable, or satellite communications within a specific time frame before an election.
  
  
• Citizens United (2010):
  The Supreme Court in Citizens United overruled both Austin and the relevant portion of McConnell, finding that the government cannot limit independent expenditures by corporations and unions, as this violates the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The Court's ruling expanded the ability of corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advocacy.

So Citizens United (2010) overturned 2 previous election laws of 2003 and 1990. It did not undo centuries of tradition when corporations were "not people," thus turning history upside-down and launching a whole new radical concept of corporate personhood not known before --

NO! Stop making up stories!

It simply reiterated the longstanding principle that corporations are legal "persons" which also have 1st Amendment rights along with all other groups. It reaffirmed basic freedom of speech, freedom of press, the fundamental rights guaranteed in the 1st Amendment.

The video/recording below, which is mostly favorable to the Citizens United decision, seems to exaggerate the effect of the change, as though it overturned a long tradition of law prohibiting corporations from having free speech liberty to issue political propaganda and influence elections. This decision did not "open the floodgates" to corporations by giving them new power to influence elections.

Rather, the Court removed recent censorship barriers (enacted 7 and 20 years earlier) which impeded corporations from exercising their free speech rights to engage in publishing political propaganda. The video says that with this court case, "longstanding prohibition on labor unions and corporations spending on federal elections fell." But "longstanding" = only 20 years.

There's an illusion that this case ushered in a new age of political propaganda by corporations. But the truth is that the change of recent years is not a result of this case, but rather a result of the recent technology changes which have made it easier for those with power to manipulate the public with promotional media.

(scroll down a few lines for the video)

Video: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission | Constitution Center

Video of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

constitutioncenter.org

This video/recording debunks the clichés "corporations are not people" and "money is not speech" and asks: Since the New York Times also is "not people," should it too be censored from publishing political commentary during elections?

Why shouldn't the N.Y. Times, or other publication, or the TV/radio Networks also be censored/restricted because they are influencing the election outcomes? Anyone accused of exerting undue influence obviously will deny it, and claim that it's not election campaigning but their own independent information they're publishing.

How do you prove that a certain newspaper is not political campaign propaganda, while a certain apparent Right- or Left-wing propaganda publisher is? Just because the publication is more heavily-political doesn't prove that it's dangerous propaganda which has to be suppressed, to shield voters, compared to the other ("independent" non-political news publication) having more diverse content.

Don't megagiant corporations like the N.Y. Times and NBC and others influence voters with their endorsements and editorials? and even their reporting which can be slanted? Is that fair to the candidates they don't endorse or give publicity to? So why should the PAC be censored but not the media megagiant?


Who is to be censored vs.
who is allowed free speech?

What distinguishes who is allowed to publish freely vs. who is to be curtailed and have their content censored by the FEC? If you say the restrictions apply only to publishers who are more political than average, then you're in effect suppressing all political publications, applying a double standard to them, interfering with their 1st Amendment rights vs. the ones not censored. So anything controversial is suppressed. Is this what democracy is about? suppressing anything that's more political or more controversial?

If the warning to publishers is: "Be careful -- don't be controversial or political" -- How is that not a threat to free speech?

No one yet is saying why a "corporation" per se needs to be subjected to more suppression than noncorporations. People posting here keep lying and saying that this has been answered -- why corporations are "not people" and must be censored, compared to noncorporations. This dishonesty just shows how phony and superficial the "corporations are not people" slogan is.


A false cause relies on a false and dishonest slogan.
"Corporations are not people"
(and can't give it up)

The vast majority of corporations are no threat at all to influence elections. 99.9% of them have no power -- it's only the top .1% or so, megacorps, which might get too large and exert disproportionate influence. If you have any integrity about this (you know who you are), you'll change your slogan to something like "Megacorps are not people" or "Megagroups are not people" -- at least this would indicate some recognition of the error -- when your entire complaint relies on ignoring 99% of all corporations, which are not anything like you're describing.

Why can't you at least admit that your slogan grossly ignores this false use of the word "corporation"? Why don't you propose changing the definition of "corporation" -- or change your slogan. You don't have the capacity to recognize this language error you're committing?

If you refuse to recognize the need to change your slogan, you're admitting that it's only a dog-whistle slang expression you're using as an outlet for your hate against something -- the rich, "Corporate America," whoever -- and you're unable to communicate your belief without using the word "corporation" even though you know it's erroneous. You exploit this error/inaccuracy in order to better communicate your rage to the public when you rely on a hate slogan like this. It's just as false as a racist slur used by bigots. Don't lie and say you don't understand the error you're committing every time you falsely use this slogan.

So the wording has to change before this "not people" slogan can start to make some sense. The wording has to become

"Megacorps are not people" or

"Megagroups are not people"

Or similar wording change. This would eliminate maybe half of the error and phoniness of this slogan. Even after the correction the slogan is still fallacious and deceitful -- maybe 50% less.


Delusion: "We must overturn Citizens United!"

. . . there are rules limiting that influence regardless of Citizens United. This case did not eliminate regulation of megacorps or their influence on elections. Even if it modified some regulations, plenty of those rules remain, to control the influence on elections, because . . .

ZiprHead: Can you state some of those regulations . . .

There are at least the limits on donations to candidates. Also some requirements on disclosure, reporting donations or election spending. In addition to federal rules ( https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/ ), there are such campaign contribution limits in each state ( https://ballotpedia.org/State-by-state_comparison_of_campaign_finance_requirements ). Citizens United did not change the limits on donations to candidates, including donations from corporations. What it overturned were restrictions on what corporations could spend on their own political propaganda separate from donations to candidates.

Whatever's wrong with excess spending on political propaganda by corporations, Citizen United is not the cause, and censorship of the political propaganda is not the solution. That case did nothing but reaffirm free speech and rebuke those who wanted censorship as a way to combat the effect of corporate political spending.

No one yet has shown that this case was anything other than a strong ruling in favor of 1st Amendment rights. When they say it changed corporations into something different, giving them new Constitutional rights they did not have before, they go off the deep end into the nutcase category.


technology advance = more power to manipulate voters

Citizens United arguably is part of a gradual trend toward more and more opportunity for megacorps or rich contributors to influence election outcomes. However, Citizens United did not cause this gradual trend, but is only a result of it, caused by it -- "cart before the horse" -- This trend is the driving force making some changes happen, like Citizens United which ruled against censorship.

So because of new science, the wealthy are gaining more power by investing in election campaigns and taking advantage of new technology. They're entitled to spend their own money on political propaganda -- they always were entitled to, even 50-100 years ago, but back then today's better technology to manipulate voters wasn't available to them.

So the real change recently is in media technology progress, opening up far more potential to manipulate the public with propaganda. Maybe also more potential to do the propagandizing secretly, concealing the sources of revenue to pay for it, which couldn't have been done 50 or 100 years ago. So it's not this one court case Citizens United which changed things. Rather, it's a gradual change which has accelerated recently with the new communications technology.

So overturning Citizens United won't fix anything, but only give sanction to censorship. And if FEC censorship should become legalized, the Regime in Washington (whoever they are 10-20 years later) will turn it to their advantage to further entrench themselves in power.

So it would be better to keep the NO CENSORSHIP! rule, affirmed by Citizens United.

Is there an alternative to censorship?

Why not instead: Have impartial examiners (grand juries?) examine political propaganda and reach a judgment whether any is partisan/political or slanted toward a particular candidate, e.g. due to heavy spending in that candidate's favor by PACs claiming to be independent. When the examiners make this judgment and put that candidate into a category of having a disproportionate advantage, it could trigger a compensating action to the benefit of that candidate's opponent(s). This could take many different forms, and would offset the disproportionate advantage gained by the candidate who benefited so much because of the outside PAC spending which favored him/her. There potentially are ways other than conventional political propaganda to influence voters.

However it's done, there are ways to allow the independently-produced political propaganda, without censorship such as the FEC tried to do. There's nothing about this which requires the country to embark on a new policy of censorship. Reversing such a new censorship policy in favor of preserving free speech is what Citizens United accomplished.

 

[NoHolyCows]

Google Search question:
What previous election law was overturned
by Citizens United?

Google answer:

The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case overturned two key election laws: the part of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission that allowed restrictions on corporations' electioneering communications, and the precedent set in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce which permitted prohibitions on independent expenditures by corporations. These laws had previously limited the ability of corporations to spend money on political advertising and advocacy during elections.

Elaboration:

• Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990):
  This case upheld a state law that prohibited corporations from using general treasury funds to support or oppose candidates in elections.
  
  
• McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003):
  This case upheld federal laws that restricted corporate and union spending on electioneering communications, particularly those that were broadcast, cable, or satellite communications within a specific time frame before an election.
  
  
• Citizens United (2010):
  The Supreme Court in Citizens United overruled both Austin and the relevant portion of McConnell, finding that the government cannot limit independent expenditures by corporations and unions, as this violates the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The Court's ruling expanded the ability of corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advocacy.

So Citizens United (2010) overturned 2 previous election laws of 2003 and 1990. It did not undo centuries of tradition when corporations were "not people," thus turning history upside-down and launching a whole new radical concept of corporate personhood not known before --

NO! Stop making up stories!

It simply reiterated the longstanding principle that corporations are legal "persons" which also have 1st Amendment rights along with all other groups. It reaffirmed basic freedom of speech, freedom of press, the fundamental rights guaranteed in the 1st Amendment.

The video/recording below, which is mostly favorable to the Citizens United decision, seems to exaggerate the effect of the change, as though it overturned a long tradition of law prohibiting corporations from having free speech liberty to issue political propaganda and influence elections. This decision did not "open the floodgates" to corporations by giving them new power to influence elections.

Rather, the Court removed recent censorship barriers (enacted 7 and 20 years earlier) which impeded corporations from exercising their free speech rights to engage in publishing political propaganda. The video says that with this court case, "longstanding prohibition on labor unions and corporations spending on federal elections fell." But "longstanding" = only 20 years.

There's an illusion that this case ushered in a new age of political propaganda by corporations. But the truth is that the change of recent years is not a result of this case, but rather a result of the recent technology changes which have made it easier for those with power to manipulate the public with promotional media.

(scroll down a few lines for the video)

Video: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission | Constitution Center

Video of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

constitutioncenter.org

This video/recording debunks the clichés "corporations are not people" and "money is not speech" and asks: Since the New York Times also is "not people," should it too be censored from publishing political commentary during elections?

Why shouldn't the N.Y. Times, or other publication, or the TV/radio Networks also be censored/restricted because they are influencing the election outcomes? Anyone accused of exerting undue influence obviously will deny it, and claim that it's not election campaigning but their own independent information they're publishing.

How do you prove that a certain newspaper is not political campaign propaganda, while a certain apparent Right- or Left-wing propaganda publisher is? Just because the publication is more heavily-political doesn't prove that it's dangerous propaganda which has to be suppressed, to shield voters, compared to the other ("independent" non-political news publication) having more diverse content.

Don't megagiant corporations like the N.Y. Times and NBC and others influence voters with their endorsements and editorials? and even their reporting which can be slanted? Is that fair to the candidates they don't endorse or give publicity to? So why should the PAC be censored but not the media megagiant?


Who is to be censored vs.
who is allowed free speech?

What distinguishes who is allowed to publish freely vs. who is to be curtailed and have their content censored by the FEC? If you say the restrictions apply only to publishers who are more political than average, then you're in effect suppressing all political publications, applying a double standard to them, interfering with their 1st Amendment rights vs. the ones not censored. So anything controversial is suppressed. Is this what democracy is about? suppressing anything that's more political or more controversial?

If the warning to publishers is: Be careful -- don't be controversial or political -- How is that not a threat to free speech?

No one yet is saying why a "corporation" per se needs to be subjected to more suppression than noncorporations. People posting here keep lying and saying that this has been answered -- why corporations are "not people" and must be censored, compared to noncorporations. This dishonesty just shows how phony and superficial the "corporations are not people" slogan is.

The vast majority of corporations are no threat at all to influence elections. 99% of them have no power -- it's only the top .1% or so, megacorps, which might get too large and exert disproportionate influence. If you have any integrity about this (you know who you are), you'll change your slogan to something like "Megacorps are not people" or "Megagroups are not people" -- at least this would indicate some recognition of the error -- when your entire complaint relies on ignoring 99% of all corporations, which are not anything like you're describing.

Why can't you at least admit that your slogan grossly ignores this false use of the word "corporation"? Why don't you propose changing the definition of "corporation" -- or change your slogan. You don't have the capacity to recognize this language error you're committing?

If you refuse to recognize the need to change your slogan, you're admitting that it's only a dog-whistle slang expression you're using as an outlet for your hate against something -- the rich, "Corporate America," whoever -- and you're unable to communicate your belief without using the word "corporation" even though you know it's erroneous. You exploit this error/inaccuracy in order to better communicate your rage to the public when you rely on a hate slogan like this. It's just as false as a racist slur used by bigots. Don't lie and say you don't understand the error you're committing every time you falsely use this slogan.

So the wording has to change before this "not people" slogan can start to make some sense. The wording has to become

"Megacorps are not people" or

"Megagroups are not people"

Or similar wording change. This would eliminate maybe half of the error and phoniness of this slogan. Even after the correction the slogan is still fallacious and deceitful -- maybe 50% less.


Delusion: "We must overturn Citizens United!"

. . . there are rules limiting that influence regardless of Citizens United. This case did not eliminate regulation of megacorps or their influence on elections. Even if it modified some regulations, plenty of those rules remain, to control the influence on elections, because . . .

ZiprHead: Can you state some of those regulations . . .

There are at least the limits on donations to candidates. Also some requirements on disclosure, reporting donations or election spending. In addition to federal rules ( https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/ ), there are such campaign contribution limits in each state ( https://ballotpedia.org/State-by-state_comparison_of_campaign_finance_requirements ). Citizens United did not change the limits on donations to candidates, including donations from corporations. What it overturned were restrictions on what corporations could spend on their own political propaganda separate from donations to candidates.

Whatever's wrong with excess spending on political propaganda by corporations, Citizen United is not the cause, and censorship of the political propaganda is not the solution. That case did nothing but reaffirm free speech and rebuke those who wanted censorship as a way to combat the effect of corporate political spending.

No one yet has shown that this case was anything other than a strong ruling in favor of 1st Amendment rights. When they say it changed corporations into something different, giving them new Constitutional rights they did not have before, they go off the deep end into the nutcase category.


technology advance = more power to manipulate voters

Citizens United arguably is part of a gradual trend toward more and more opportunity for megacorps or rich contributors to influence election outcomes. However, Citizens United did not cause this gradual trend, but is only a result of it, caused by it -- "cart before the horse" -- This trend is the driving force making some changes happen, like Citizens United which ruled against censorship.

So because of new science, the wealthy are gaining more power by investing in election campaigns and taking advantage of new technology. They're entitled to spend their own money on political propaganda -- they always were entitled to, even 50-100 years ago, but back then today's better technology to manipulate voters wasn't available to them.

So the real change recently is in media technology progress, opening up far more potential to manipulate the public with propaganda. Maybe also more potential to do the propagandizing secretly, concealing the sources of revenue to pay for it, which couldn't have been done 50 or 100 years ago. So it's not this one court case Citizens United which changed things. Rather, it's a gradual change which has accelerated recently with the new communications technology.

So overturning Citizens United won't fix anything, but only give sanction to censorship. And if FEC censorship should become legalized, the Regime in Washington (whoever they are 10-20 years later) will turn it to their advantage to further entrench themselves in power.

So it would be better to keep the NO CENSORSHIP! rule, affirmed by Citizens United.

Is there an alternative to censorship?

Why not instead: Have impartial examiners (grand juries?) examine political propaganda and reach a judgment whether any is partisan/political or slanted toward a particular candidate, e.g. due to heavy spending in that candidate's favor by PACs claiming to be independent. When the examiners make this judgment and put that candidate into a category of having a disproportionate advantage, it could trigger a compensating action to the benefit of that candidate's opponent(s). This could take many different forms, and would offset the disproportionate advantage gained by the candidate who benefited so much because of the outside PAC spending which favored him/her. There potentially are ways other than conventional political propaganda to influence voters.

However it's done, there are ways to allow the independently-produced political propaganda, without censorship such as the FEC tried to do. There's nothing about this which requires the country to embark on a new policy of censorship. Reversing such a new censorship policy in favor of preserving free speech is what Citizens United accomplished.

You’re right that Citizens United didn’t touch direct donations to candidates—it focused on independent spending by corporations and unions. But here’s the issue: even “uncoordinated” spending can completely reshape an election. If a corporation spends millions flooding the airwaves with ads boosting a candidate, they don’t need to donate a cent to have a massive influence.

Yes, technology has made this kind of influence even more powerful—no argument there. But that’s exactly why Citizens United is such a problem. It didn’t cause that influence, but it removed the legal guardrails that used to keep it in check. Now, thanks to that ruling, there’s no cap on how much corporate money can flow into our elections—most of it through dark money channels with no real transparency.

That’s not just speech—it’s power. And regulating that kind of influence isn’t censorship. The government already limits campaign contributions, requires disclosures, and bans coordination—all without violating the First Amendment. The idea that we can’t draw any lines when it comes to money in politics just doesn’t hold up.

Your suggestion about having an impartial system to monitor propaganda is thoughtful, and it shows we agree on something important: there is a real problem with disproportionate influence. But the moment you admit that, you’re also admitting there needs to be a remedy. And without real, enforceable limits on political spending, it becomes impossible to level the playing field.

We’re not saying corporations should have no rights. We’re saying that democracy works best when no one—person or entity—can buy more voice than the rest of us combined. That’s the core issue. Not censorship—balance. Not silencing speech—making sure everyone’s voice still matters.

NHC

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

FALSE DICHOTOMY

1) corporations ("not people")
(not protected by the 1st Amendment, not having Constitutional rights)
----- vs. -----
2) noncorporations ("voluntary associations")
(protected by the 1st Amendment, having Constitutional rights)

the meaning of "Corporations are not people"


Stop lying -- you have not distinguished "corporations" (which have no rights) from other groups (which are "people" and have rights).


(continued from previous Wall of Text)


how 1st Amendment protection of "not people" corporations is different:

[The corporation is][or the megagroup is] not protected to safeguard personal liberty; it’s protected to expand institutional leverage.

This is the NoHolyCows reason why a corporation (megagroup) should not have 1st Amendment protection whereas noncorporations should be protected. And the reason why is that when the megagroup is protected, this is only to expand institutional leverage rather than to safeguard personal liberty. Does this mean there is something heroic and noble about censoring propaganda intended to "expand institutional leverage" somewhere? So if someone threatens to "expand institutional leverage," they should be banned or censored?

And it would be heroic to protect freedom of speech only if this is done in order to "safeguard personal liberty," but not if for something other than this? So censoring the corporation, or curtailing its 1st Amendment freedom, is appropriate as long as the reason to do it is something more noble than suppressing its personal liberty?

As long as the suppression is done for the right kind of reason, then it's OK, or necessary? It's because the aim of protecting the corporation is not to safeguard personal liberty but to expand institutional leverage that it's proper to suppress that corporation rather than protect its 1st Amendment rights? Is there a good rule in there somewhere? -- it seems to say we need censorship of a corporation to prevent that corporation from expanding its institutional leverage. This is the best NoHolyCows can come up with as an explanation why corporations are "not people" and have no rights vs. a noncorporation which is "people" and having 1st Amendment rights.

In other words, 1st Amendment protection is appropriate if it's done to safeguard personal liberty, but not if it's done to "expand institutional leverage" such as with corporations. Is this kind of reasoning a good way to decide who has 1st Amendment rights and who does not? and whether they are "people"?

Remember, "Corporations are not people" means that censorship is needed in some cases, like with corporations. Overturning Citizens United means that some censorship is needed in this case, i.e. in the case of corporations spending money on political speech/propaganda, and prohibiting speech here is called for, because corporations are not protected by the 1st Amendment.


Simple straightforward rules are better:

good rule (Citizens United case): Don't censor political propaganda.

bad rule (NoHolyCows rule): Censor political propaganda as needed to limit expansion of institutional leverage, but do this without threatening personal liberty.

Got it! I think --

The difference is:
-- corporations ("not people") vs. noncorporations ("people") =

Whatever (take a deep breath)

"censor-political-propaganda-as-needed-to-limit-expansion-of- institutional-leverage-but-do-this-without-threatening-personal-liberty"​

whatever that^ means

means ----------- ,​

that is what makes a corporation "not people" vs. all other groups which are "people" ---

This is the best explanation. I.e. we need an explanation why a corporation (or megacorps) cannot have 1st Amendment rights while all other groups do have rights. Because noncorporate groups are "people" and so have rights, while corporations are "not people" and so don't have 1st Amendment rights. Doesn't that require an explanation? And the above is supposed to explain it -- right?

When you consign millions of corporations to the "not people" category and take away their rights, shouldn't there be an explanation? And all other (noncorporate) groups are said to still be "people" and still have their 1st Amendment rights.

And that explanation is "censor-political-propaganda-as-needed-to-limit-expansion-of- institutional-leverage-but-do-this-without-threatening-personal-liberty" --- Isn't it obvious that no one who says "corporations are not people" has any imaginable explanation what this is supposed to mean?

What rules in society DON'T limit someone's personal liberty? Even the traffic laws limit people's personal liberty. And what expansion of institutional power should be prevented? whose power? which institution? Complicated rules like this introduce abstractions and interpretations and nitpicking over the particular terms, haggling over what might be an exception to the rule.


"expansion of institutional leverage"?

So this is what makes a corporation "not people" and needing to be denied 1st Amendment rights? -- to distinguish the corporation group from the noncorporation group. This is what "not people" means?

Let's face it --- no one really can explain what is the difference between the two different kinds of groups. I.e., why one is "not people" and having no 1st Amendment rights vs. the other which is "people" and still entitled to free speech.

Why is expansion of institutional power or institutional "leverage" necessarily wrong in all cases? Should there be no institutional power at all? or is there a need for a certain amount of this power? Why not just change the wording of the cliché to

"Megacorps are not people" (or "Megagroups")?

"personal liberty": How can the censorship not threaten "personal liberty" (of those promoting the propaganda)? Isn't everyone's "personal liberty" partly curtailed anyway? in any society? If you curtail their freedom to publish the propaganda, does this not diminish their "personal liberty"?

OK, some cases are obvious: censorship of criminal content -- child porn, or "let's lynch the Prime Minister!" -- is understood universally. We all agree with that kind of censorship -- you can't publish a plan to murder someone, or torture someone, or incite a riot or insurrection.

But why censorship of political speech or propaganda about a candidate? Why is any such censorship necessary? especially since those currently in power determine which propaganda is allowed and which is not? Why not a simple rule excluding that kind of censorship?


So the pro-and-con of this case (Citizens United) can be summed up thus:

PRO:
If you AGREE with the decision -- "CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE" -- you're saying:
⬤ Don't suppress or censor political propaganda.

whereas --

CON:
If you DISAGREE -- "CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE") -- you're saying:
⬤ Censor political propaganda in order to limit expansion of institutional power, but do it without threatening personal liberty.

So the "corporations are not people" rule translates into a complicated tangle of subjective judgments about who should not expand or what power is "institutional" and if someone's liberty is threatened. While the court ruling in Citizens United simply prohibits censorship of political speech.

We need good rules, enforced consistently, easily grasped and accepted by the general population. They should be easy to interpret and apply even-handedly to individual cases. Like the rule which emerges from the Citizens United case: Don't censor political propaganda! -- period.

This is similar to the rule: No slavery! The U.S.A. should set a good example for history, with imperatives like: No slavery! No censorship! No taxation without representation! No arrest/detention without habeas corpus! etc.


But by contrast, a rule promoting censorship to --
limit "expansion of institutional power" as long as it doesn't "threaten personal liberty" --
will inevitably be seized upon by demagogues in power sending their thugs out to censor their opposition and then defend this by saying no one's "personal liberty" was threatened and that the censorship was necessary to limit someone's "expansion of institutional leverage" etc. etc. When the law is based on abstractions like the above, the ensuing arguments and bickering over the meaning of it will go on and on as the thugs go ahead and act arbitrarily before a Court case can finally resolve it and issue something the judges agree on.


But "they're not people!"
So censor them.

Free speech and free press are fundamental rights protected in the Constitution. Though there are limits to any freedom, it should not be easy to suppress something so basic. How can the basis for suppressing this freedom of someone be the outcry that
"They're not people!"????? Where before did anyone's rights be denied to them for such a reason? How did "They're not people!" become grounds for denying to someone their basic 1st Amendment rights? which they've always had? All groups have enjoyed these basic rights -- how is it now that the enlightened Progressives want to suppress this fundamental right based on the grounds that the ones being suppressed are "not people" and so therefore cannot have rights?

And then they become flustered when they're challenged to explain which are the ones who are people and which ones not. Never before was anyone denied basic rights for such a reason as this. How all of a sudden did someone become legally "not people" who always were people in the past, enjoying the same basic rights as all the others? And no one can answer, none of these wanting to deny them these rights can explain how this "not people" group they're targeting differs significantly from all the others.

Which group is "not people"? How do you know?

Who told you this group is "not people" but that other one is "people"? You think you don't have to explain that? What if someone brands your neighborhood or your tribe or your club as "not people" --- aren't you entitled to an answer? The "corporations are not people" fanatics are doing this and giving no explanation -- or none that makes any sense.

They are totally oblivious to the of big and small (huge vs. tiny) corporations and the millions of big and small NONcorporations -- the vast differences in size and categories which make it nonsensical to think you can divide all groups of humans neatly into these two different classifications -- one which is "people" and has rights and the other "not people" and has no rights.

And of course the "not people" group is villainized religiously and made into an Oppressor Class which is to blame for everything wrong in the world. This is an "us vs. them" delusion which drives many different kinds of fanatics and crusaders who need an alien or enemy out there -- like there's a deep hate somewhere inside for which a target must be found.

What's the right correction when a publication or speech is wrong about something? Suppress it? Censor it? No, but rather an additional publication which can do the correction. And that's the correct remedy to any false political propaganda: there needs to be some further propaganda to counter the earlier one that was wrong.

Are they "buying the election"? and so have to be censored? Hey! How many elections were NOT "bought" by the winner?

Every winner BOUGHT the election. -- including the candidate you voted for. They all had to buy their way through the hurdles to become official candidates, through the petitions. They BOUGHT all those signatures, to qualify for ballot status, then they bought their way through the primaries, to bump off the lesser nobody-candidates who never had a chance, because they couldn't buy the necessary publicity, excluded from debates because nobody knew who they were and they couldn't afford the price of getting any recognition.

And finally, in the runoffs, the 2 who paid the most and bought their way to the finals did speeches back and forth at each other, and whoever did the best at lying and name-calling and slandering the other finally impresses more voters and gets awarded the booty that they both paid dearly for.

And you think the FEC will clean up this mess by branding someone as "not people" and censoring them?

No, there needs to be a fundamental rule for all elections, a straightforward NO CENSORSHIP! (of political speech) rule applied across-the-board to everyone, as fundamental, binding on all.

If there's a need to reduce someone's "institutional leverage" (whatever that means), do it without censoring political propaganda as "political speech" which might influence voters or whoever. Whatever the need to offset the powerful interests, find a way to do it without starting a precedent which encourages censorship. The Election Commission should specifically renounce all censorship as a way to control excess influence from the powerful interests.


Google Search question: What political film was ever banned prior to Hillary: the Movie?

Google answer:

Prior to Hillary: The Movie, the documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore was a notable film that faced significant backlash and controversy, but it was not officially banned. While Hillary: The Movie was produced by a conservative organization and was a direct response to Moore's film, it was the Hillary: The Movie production, Citizens United, that ultimately challenged and won a landmark Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. FEC, which greatly affected campaign finance and political speech.

translation of the above Google answer: No previous political film was ever banned or censored by the Election Commission (or other gov't agency). Is this correct? Or was there ever a case of this? Could it be that this would have been the first film ever banned (=restricted) (by gov't) in the U.S.? Can someone name a previous case where a political film was banned = (restricted, its advertising or circulation suppressed)?


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

FALSE DICHOTOMY

1) corporations ("not people")
(not protected by the 1st Amendment, not having Constitutional rights)
----- vs. -----
2) noncorporations ("voluntary associations")
(protected by the 1st Amendment, having Constitutional rights)

the meaning of "Corporations are not people"


Stop lying -- you have not distinguished "corporations" (which have no rights) from other groups (which are "people" and have rights).


(continued from previous Wall of Text)



"legal fiction"?
Even so it's still a legal PERSON
with 1st Amendment rights.

It is people just as the corporation is people. Protected by 1st Amendment rights.

This is the core issue. While it’s true that corporations are composed of people, the entity itself is a legal fiction created by . . .

You can use this technical jargon -- "legal fiction" -- if it makes you feel good. However, it doesn't mean the corporation is "not people" or is something artificial and not protected by the Constitution. Other "legal fictions" are citizenship, property ownership, child adoption, inheritance, national and state borders, and cities and states and nations -- all are real, though partly based on convention rather than nature or physical science. The real "core issue" is that they are "people" having 1st Amendment rights. No one is answering how they are any less people than the noncorporations and any less entitled to 1st Amendment rights.

. . . legal fiction created by the state, not a . . .

No, some or most corporations existed as entities before incorporating, so that group was not created by the state. It existed prior and then chose to adopt corporate status. It is still the same group it had been earlier before incorporating, so its creation was prior to adopting corporate status. You can say its corporate status was created, or granted to it. But the group, now a corporation, was created prior to becoming a corporation.

. . . not a natural rights-bearing person.

It's a group of natural rights-bearing persons, just like NONcorporate groups -- no one yet is distinguishing these (the corporate vs. the noncorporate) such that one is any less entitled to 1st Amendment rights than the other. So far the assumption is that corporations are not natural rights-bearing persons, whereas all other groups are. So, e.g., the David Koresh cult was a natural rights-bearing person.

If a corporation is "not a natural rights-bearing person," then what about the Unitarian Church, which is a corporation? It is not a natural rights-bearing person? What about the Presbyterian Church U.S.A.? It is NOT a corporation -- So is it a "natural rights-bearing person" or not?

Unitarian Church = "not people"
Presbyterian Church U.S.A.= natural rights-bearing "people" person

Are you finally going to admit that ALL groups must be "not people" whether they are incorporated or not? -- or conversely, that all groups are "people" and the cliché "corporations are not people" is a hoax? and so all groups go into the same category -- either all "not people" or all "people"? Which is it? Do you recognize that you cannot separate off one grouptype (corporate) alone into the "not people" category? so those groups have no 1st Amendment rights while all other groups do? What about Planned Parenthood? It also is a corporation -- so it is or is not a "natural rights-bearing person"?

Why should Planned Parenthood be "not people" whereas the David Koresh cult was "people" because it was not a corporation? Do you feel OK with saying that Planned Parenthood is "not people" whereas the David Koresh cult is/was "people"? You have to answer these questions if you're claiming someone has NO 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS because they're "not people" -- you can't just casually consign a group to this category and claim that because they're in that category they have no rights. You must explain to Planned Parenthood why it's "not people" and has no rights, while the United Methodists does have rights and "people" status because it's not a corporation. -- So, how do you explain this to Planned Parenthood?


ALL the groups, big and small, are "people"
All have 1st Amendment rights.

All that anyone has shown is that a very large group -- megacorp or megagroup -- might have some extra rules applied to it, even regulations for special cases -- BUT, even these large groups are "people" with 1st Amendment rights. Sure, maybe their "rights" are more restricted, just like convicted criminals are people with rights (more restricted rights).

We're ALL restricted -- we have to obey the traffic laws etc. etc. etc. -- there's no such thing as UNrestricted rights. And some categories of people must submit to some extra restrictions or regulations, etc. This might apply to megacorps or megagroups who get too large or powerful. But they're all still people with 1st Amendment rights.

The corporation is legally a "person" or "people" for purposes of 1st Amendment rights, the same as noncorporate groups, and no one is giving any explanation otherwise, like NoHolyCows is not with the above false dichotomy -- i.e., the corporation is "not protected to safeguard personal liberty; it’s protected to expand institutional leverage" -- that word-ramble-mush does not distinguish corporations from noncorporations.

The Court ruled that ALL the groups are equally "people" or "persons" (for legal purposes), and this personhood was already so before that Court ruling.

This ruling changed nothing from how it had been for centuries past. (It only overturned 2 very recent laws which abridged the 1st Amendment rights of corporations.) The Court simply ruled what was already the case. If the FEC had won, it would have changed the rules so that censorship against certain publishers is now allowed because these particular publishers are "not people" and have no 1st Amendment right to free speech or press. That would have been a real change from before.

Google Search question: Were corporations "people" prior to Citizens United?

Google answer:

Yes, corporations were considered legal entities with certain rights, including the right to property, before Citizens United. While the Supreme Court had not previously explicitly granted them the same rights as natural persons under the Constitution, particularly concerning political speech, the groundwork for corporate personhood was already in place.

So corporations are not a "fiction" without rights, but legal persons with rights -- even before Citizens United they had personhood under the law.

Again, a corporation is "a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law." https://www.google.com/search?q=def...OyBwowLjExLjYtMS4xuAfHHA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Though the term "legal fiction" is applied to corporations, this doesn't change the fact that it's legally a person with 1st Amendment rights, always recognized as such in the law. Though it's typically subject to restrictions, this doesn't mean it's "not people" and has no Constitutional rights. (Everyone's rights, including that of all groups, are subject to some restrictions.) The 1st Amendment applies to corporations and all groups just as to individuals.

The group called "corporation" is protected by the 1st Amendment like any noncorporate group and entitled to publish literature and other media, including political propaganda. Calling it a "fiction" doesn't change the fact that it (the group of people) has rights the same as a person. The legal personhood of corporations was established in law prior to Citizens United.

And this right is exercised constantly, as the corporation publishes literature, and it would be unconstitutional to censor this publishing. And yet even so, if the corporation were to print something criminal or treasonous, that is curtailed and penalized by law, which does put limits on rights it extends to "people" -- so that there is NO UNLIMITED RIGHT to publish or do anything which might be criminal or pose a real social threat.

The [individual] people within the corporation [as individual humans] already have First Amendment rights—they can donate, speak, protest, and publish.

But so can the corporation per se of which they are members; or the members acting as a group, in their capacity as parts of the whole entity (same as a church, Girl Scouts, etc.). And many/most corporations do publish and speak and are protected by the 1st Amendment, as "people" or as a "person" legally recognized. And that goes back for centuries -- their 1st Amendment rights were not recently invented as a result of Citizens United. You can't name any previous case or legally established precedent or law which said corporations were "not people" and had no Constitutional rights.

The controversy in Citizens United is about granting that power to the corporation itself, which . . .

"granting" WHAT power? No new power was granted to corporations by Citizens United. Corporations already had 1st Amendment rights PRIOR to Citizens United. Just because they might have been subject to some limits doesn't mean they were "not people" and had no rights. The Court simply reiterated what the corporations already had. I.e., corporations were already "legal persons" with rights, having some "power" (i.e. limited power). Even for private citizens the 1st Amendment is limited. So this limited power also pertains to corporations which are "people" for purposes of the 1st Amendment.

This case did not "grant" or add further Constitutional rights to corporations. It only said that censoring or suppressing a political film or book or other propaganda infringes their 1st Amendment rights, as it would be an infringement on anyone's right to free speech and free press, and thus it overturned 2 recent bad laws which had infringed on 1st Amendment rights. Thus the good ruling, straightforward: Do not censor/suppress political speech or propaganda.

This ruling did not do away with the limits on donations. It did not abolish regulations or limits to campaign funds. It left the previous limits and rules in place.


limit on donations to candidates = not censorship
suppressing a publication or film = censorship

The theory is that putting limits on donations to a candidate is NOT censorship, or denial of free speech. Actually, even limiting donations might be called "censorship" too, but the Court distinguishes between suppression of a particular publication (censorship = unconstitutional) vs. restricting how much one may donate to a candidate (campaign donation limits = legal).

The one being censored would be a publisher (independent of the candidate) wanting to have an influence by distributing propaganda in some form (book or film or video) and then being suppressed in trying to distribute it -- the quantity of it reduced or the printing of it limited -- anything that reduces that product, like reducing its production, preventing or reducing its circulation, etc., or also restricting the time frame for its presentation, like prohibiting its circulation during the election season. All that is censorship, and infringement of basic 1st Amendment rights.

It's true that the film would not have been confiscated and destroyed, but to restrict its circulation, restrict how much $$ could be spent on it, stop it from being presented, etc. are all forms of suppression or censorship. Limiting or restricting its production or distribution is censorship.

"censorship":
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Google Search

www.google.com

When would censorship be legitimate?

The rule should be no censorship at all (unless the item to be censored contains criminal content). Why should there be ANY censorship whatever for something political, or controversial, or philosophical?

Perhaps for something which is scientifically false and dangerous, e.g. promoting a fraudulent medical product, etc., you could make a case for banning it. Or also distributing some dangerous substance which might explode or release something dangerous into the air, etc. So a case can be made for censorship of known dangerous books or videos or other media which really pose a threat to health or safety. But not for political propaganda. Or religious or philosophical books or films, etc.

In the political arena, a system is needed which cannot degenerate into something dangerous only because some people read a bad book or viewed a bad film. So yes, we know the possibility of a broadcast which might cause a panic and lead to a disaster of some kind -- the War of the Worlds broadcast of 1938.

What is the threat to society from such a film or book?

It will cause a STAMPEDE, or EPIDEMIC, and casualties ---
then yes, censor it or ban it.

It will cause someone to VOTE THE WRONG WAY ---
too bad, a candidate losing is no threat to the country. ​

So you might argue that such a program as that should be censored. Maybe a rule was needed, in such a case, requiring better announcement that the story was fiction rather than real. And, except for that, no "censorship" was necessary. It's hard to imagine a scenario where a political propaganda item could cause a similar panic and disaster. Unless you can cite something of that nature, where society is threatened with disaster, there is no justification to ever censor political propaganda.

What was the need to censor this film -- Hillary: the Movie?
Let's say it was a hatchet job on her, but no doubt many accusations in a propaganda piece are at least half true. Everyone high in political power probably did something dishonest to get there.



The question is: What is the great threat to America by a film like this being produced (admittedly a biased propaganda film) and shown to millions of viewers? There is no threat. It's just another political exposé drama/soap-opera show to bash a popular politician, and her fans hated the movie while her enemies got a charge from it. And the worst harm from it is that it might have turned away some votes from her, perhaps even changing the outcome. So what? It's not a disaster for the country that a popular politician got damaged by a political propaganda film. This is not serious enough that censorship should be resorted to.

Today Pres. Trump would like to censor the January 6 riot videos from the House investigation. You know if that scene is played again on TV, or is scheduled for replay, Pres. Trump would seek some way to censor it. What we need is a simple rule:

NO CENSORSHIP! (of anything political, Left-Right-Center)
regardless who produced it or who is bashed in it
​

Whatever such "censorship" of the propaganda you might think necessary -- it's disinformation, it's an "unfair" influence on voters -- the primary rule for combatting it has to be that of publishing the truth, to counter the false information coming from the propaganda. And this publishing the truth, to offset the disinformation or lies from the propaganda, must itself follow an inherent premise that all versions of the truth must be allowed to come out and not suffer the possibility of getting censored.

Censorship per se is automatically ruled out in the process of identifying the truth which is needed in order to combat whatever is false. Because if censoring the bad guys is part of your plan to put forth the truth, you lose credibility in your claiming the truth is on your side. Your reliance on censorship undermines your claim to be on the side of truth. Rather than censorship as your weapon, you must find a way to present the truth instead, without the need for any censorship.


The Court was right in Citizens United.
The decision should not be overturned.

If another similar case comes up and the Citizens United decision is overruled, then in the future there will be more censorship of political publications, books, films, videos, as both Republicans and Democrats will decide to use censorship as a weapon to defeat the other side.

Can anyone give a reason why any such political propaganda film should be censored? i.e., especially propaganda which does a hatchet job on one of the politicians? even if the film grossly exaggerates the facts? What is the harm done to the country if that politician gets defeated? It's just one more demagogue who bites the dust.

The best way to fight back is to produce similar propaganda against demagogues on the other side, rather than resort to censorship. It's good for both Left and Right to use such propaganda tactics to bash the other side -- never good for one side to censor the other.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)