Corporations are People?

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Lumpenproletariot, answer these questions - who are the members of a corporation? How does reversing Citizens United court decision cause growth in censorship; what is the causal link?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

"Get money out of politics" = Left-wing slogan

Lumpenproletariot, answer these questions - who are the members of a corporation?

When I used the term "members" I meant "the people within the corporation" term used by NoHolyCows. Maybe s/he meant officers and employees.

My point is that the corporation is also a person, legally, just like each individual "member" is a person. The corporation makes decisions, does what it chooses to do, etc., so it has a will, and is a person for legal purposes. This makes sense and can be explained. But what does not make sense is to say that corporations don't have the same rights that other groups have, because they are "not people" even though other groups are "people." When Left-wingers say this, they are engaging only in sloganism and dog-whistle stampeding of the mindless masses who act only on impulse, without thinking. It is hate speech directed at inspiring rage against "corporations" as scapegoats, though these sloganeers don't clarify who their scapegoat is. It's obviously not corporations per se, because many Left-wing organizations are themselves corporations.

How does reversing Citizens United court decision cause growth in censorship; what is the causal link?

On Thom Hartmann's program there is frequent demand that Citizens United be reversed, because otherwise "the corporations" will impose something awful onto us, although Hartmann speaks only in slogans, like class warfare slogans of the rich vs. the poor, etc. And so it's difficult to figure out what he and the Left-wingers think this case really did.

But theoretically there could be another case, where the FEC would try to censor someone's political propaganda, like they wanted to do in this case. And if the Court should rule differently, it could reverse that earlier ruling, which said the film by that corporation could not be restricted by the FEC.

So, as I understand it, a reversal of that decision would mean that the FEC could resume its power to ban some publications, or ban some films or recordings from being broadcast or put on the Internet, etc. Such power means that anyone (non-candidate, independent of a candidate) who publishes anything, broadcasts it, puts it online for wide viewership, etc., could be prevented or curtailed from doing so, as long as the FEC finds that it might have an undue impact on an election going on at the time of it being published.

As it is right now, there is unlimited freedom of any publisher or promoter (non-candidate, independent of a candidate) to broadcast their propaganda on the media, if the private broadcasters or owners of that media/platform accept it, including selling broadcast time to the promoter. And the FEC's rules right now apply only to limiting donations to particular candidates.

And these promoters/publishers are called "PACs" (political action committees), but it could just be anyone publishing anything (probably political, controversial, etc.) which the FEC decides is too likely to have an impact on an election going on.

Left-wingers like Thom Hartmann say such publication or promotion (of Right-wing "hate") too near election time is an unfair advantage given to people with lots of money to spend in an attempt to influence voters and change the outcome of an election. And it's a way the rich can get what they want from political power without having to just donate to individual candidates, which donating is restricted. Whereas spending the money on their own propaganda instead is unlimited.

Thom Hartmann calls any such excess spending on political propaganda "legalizing bribery of our politicians" -- and putting a stop to it is needed in order to "get money out of politics."

 

[NoHolyCows]

Lumpen,

Let me ask you this plainly: If Citizens United didn’t change anything—if corporations already had the full scope of First Amendment protections you claim—then why was Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce upheld for 20 years, and why did Citizens United have to overturn it?

Why did the Court need to reverse existing law if corporate entities already had the same rights as natural persons?

You keep saying this decision merely “reaffirmed” existing rights, but the truth is it invalidated laws that had legally restricted corporate political spending for decades—laws upheld by multiple previous Supreme Court rulings.

That’s not reaffirmation. That’s a radical shift in the interpretation of the First Amendment.

So if you truly believe Citizens United didn’t “grant” new powers to corporations, then I challenge you to answer this: Why did the law have to be changed? Why were the restrictions in Austin and McConnell struck down?

Because the answer is simple: Before Citizens United, corporate political spending was limited by law. After Citizens United, it wasn’t. That is the change. And denying that only reveals you haven’t read the decision—or you’re unwilling to admit what it actually did.

NHC

 

[unapologetic]

What about multinational corperations?
What if a large number of the stockholders are not US citzens?
What if the officers are not?
What percentage need to be citzens?
Can a business that is not incorperated be a 'person'? with 1st admendment rights?
What about an AI?

 

[Swammerdami]

"Get money out of politics" = Left-wing slogan

What's your view on this slogan? Would it be good or bad if money played less of a role in political campaigns?
Teddy Roosevelt -- did you know he was a Republican? -- (along with many of his successors) thought money should NOT play a major role:

As early as 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt recognized the need for campaign finance reform and called for legislation to ban corporate contributions for political purposes. In response, Congress enacted several statutes between 1907 and 1966.

In 1971, Congress consolidated its earlier reform efforts in the Federal Election Campaign Act, instituting more stringent disclosure requirements for federal candidates, political parties and political action committees (PACs). Still, without a central administrative authority, the campaign finance laws were difficult to enforce.

Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 presidential campaign, Congress amended the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs. The 1974 amendments also established an independent agency, the FEC. The FEC opened its doors in 1975.

For various reasons (including the Citizens United decision) public financing of Presidential elections has become less feasible. Good or bod, @Lumpenproletariat ?

Lumpenproletariot, answer these questions - who are the members of a corporation?

When I used the term "members" I meant "the people within the corporation" term used by NoHolyCows. Maybe s/he meant officers and employees.

Nothing prevents "the people within [a] corporation" from banding together, pooling their money and donating to campaign(s). Right? What problem does that pose which allowing corporate donations is intended to solve?

I and others have already explained why your viewpoint is wrong-wrong-wrong. Reread my prior post.

... But what does not make sense is to say that corporations don't have the same rights that other groups have, because they are "not people" even though other groups are "people." When Left-wingers say this, they are engaging only in sloganism and dog-whistle stampeding of the mindless masses who act only on impulse, without thinking. It is hate speech directed at inspiring rage against "corporations" as scapegoats, though these sloganeers don't clarify who their scapegoat is. It's obviously not corporations per se, because many Left-wing organizations are themselves corporations.

Bitter? Angry? I hope this inane vituperation helped you get something out of your system.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

1st Amendment free speech can adapt to modern technology, need not be scrapped.
NO CENSORSHIP! should still be the rule.

Let me ask you this plainly: If Citizens United didn’t change anything — if corporations already had the full scope of First Amendment protections you claim — then why was Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce upheld for 20 years, and . . .

Maybe that law was OK for some purposes, maybe to prevent a corporation from spending money on promoting a political candidate. But what's not legitimate is to censor political propaganda, like the FEC would have done if the Court had ruled differently. If the Michigan law authorized censorship, like banning or restricting political propaganda, then it was wrong and should have been overruled. I admit I don't know the particulars of that law, or that case. Maybe there was a need for that law for some cases. Was it really overturned, completely? Was the Michigan law repealed entirely? Maybe it's only the censorship part that was overturned.

. . . why was Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce upheld for 20 years, and why did Citizens United have to overturn it?

It wasn't that case per se which Citizens United had to overturn, but rather the FEC, which violated 1st Amendment rights with its regulations, and the reason to overrule the FEC was to reaffirm 1st Amendment rights which were threatened by the FEC enforcement of its regulations.

It was the FEC and censorship which was overturned by the Citizens United decision -- The FEC had claimed that CU's film violated FEC regulations on campaign spending, and so that film was subject to restrictions, so it could not be circulated during an election period. And that was rejected by the Court in this decision, because the company should have free speech, or freedom to distribute any political propaganda it wished, as long as it was done independently of any candidate, or was not a donation to a candidate. FEC's demand was that the company could not pay its own funds to promote such propaganda because it could influence the election, violating its regulations. But the FEC was wrong about this.


Is it wrong to INFLUENCE VOTERS? Why?

Free speech includes the right to publish propaganda intended to influence people, even voters. There's no reason to curtail propaganda intended to change people's minds, including how they might vote.

This was a battle between 2 giant special-interest power-players, with the vast majority of us not having any say-so in the decision or anything at stake in the outcome. It was not giant Corporate America vs. a poor innocent freedom-fighter.

And if the FEC had not been overruled by the Court, then the Citizens United company could have been restricted from distributing this film during the election, which would be censorship, and denial of free speech.

Maybe the Michigan law also had threatened similar abridgment of 1st Amendment rights -- I admit I don't know about that law. If there was no censorship, then I don't see why it should be overruled.
____________________
NOTE: Immediately after this Wall of Text I will post Google Search responses about the Michigan law and also the McConnell case, and I will avoid getting bogged down on those for now. I admit I don't know anything about them. If they were about free speech abridgement, then maybe they should have been reversed. Censoring anything is what's wrong and needs to be overturned.
______________________

The assumption is that merely putting limits on donations to a candidate is not censorship per se. But to restrict a publisher (noncandidate) from putting out their propaganda is censorship. Without the Citizens United decision to overrule the FEC, there probably would have been additional cases where someone (probably a corporation) would have been curtailed by the FEC (and maybe also by a state) in distributing certain political propaganda during the election period. So the practical reality during that time (1990-2010) was that some potential producers (maybe corporations -- it doesn't matter who exactly) were less able to promote some political propaganda they otherwise would have promoted. And the Citizens United case removed such barriers, which were a form of censorship.

Free speech includes unlimited freedom to spend $$$ on political propaganda. Even the candidate can spend unlimited amounts. What is limited are the donations to a candidate.

Why did the Court need to reverse existing law if corporate entities already had the same rights as natural persons?

Did it "reverse existing law"? What it ostensibly reversed were FEC regulations/enforcement which amounted to censorship or curtailing free speech rights. To say "corporate entities" already had those rights doesn't mean there was no (threatened) abridgement of those rights taking place. And "reversing" the law doesn't mean that law is removed from the books. The law might remain exactly the same as before, and just not be applied the same way in the future, or perhaps it would be amended slightly.

You keep saying this decision merely “reaffirmed” existing rights, but the truth is it invalidated laws that had legally restricted corporate political spending for . . .

Only laws which abridged free speech rights. What "spending" are we talking about? Citizens United did not invalidate limits on donations. Those limits were left untouched. It invalidated suppression of free speech. I.e., of "spending" on its political propaganda. To say you can't spend money on this or that is a restriction on the this or that which the money would be spent on. You can call it a restriction on "spending" if you prefer, but the law was targeting what the money was to be spent on -- namely the political propaganda, or this film which the company was promoting. Forbidding "spending" on this film was an act of suppressing the film = denial of free speech.

. . . laws that had legally restricted corporate spending for decades [20 years] — laws upheld by multiple previous Supreme Court rulings.

Perhaps. Those laws could be legitimate for some purposes, but not as something to inflict censorship onto a publisher (anyone publishing, including a megacorp). It's not legitimate to say someone (small or large group) is wrong to want to influence voters and to spend money publishing political propaganda aimed at impacting an election. Gov't should not try to curtail this.

But there was no state law saying "corporations are not people" and so therefore are not protected by 1st Amendment rights. CU did not overrule an earlier law saying "corporations are not people" because there was no such law.

Those laws you say were invalidated by CU probably had restrictions on propaganda which might influence the outcome of an election. In that view of the 1st Amendment, it's assumed that you don't have a right to publish political propaganda which might influence voters (if you spent beyond some limit on that propaganda). And the limit probably was about spending millions of $$$ on a campaign -- beyond a certain allowable limit.

The CU decision said it's only donations to candidates which can be restricted, whereas propaganda per se from a "PAC" not connected to a candidate cannot be suppressed or subjected to limits. Because "free speech" includes the right to spend money trying to influence an election, as long as it's not a donation to a candidate. It's only donations to a candidate which are rightly restricted, not publishing propaganda which might influence voters.


Free Speech vs. "Corporations are not people"

"Free Speech" = Why not let anyone publish any political propaganda they wish, in unlimited amounts? even if they want to influence voters? with the only qualifier being that you cannot donate directly to a candidate's campaign. (This is the Citizens United ruling.)

"Corporations are not people" = The very wealthy must be curtailed from spending so much to influence election outcomes, or causing citizens to change their votes.

The Court ruled for 1) above. Why should someone publishing political propaganda be subject to rules restricting how much they're allowed to spend on it? or restricting the distribution of the propaganda? That seems to be the Left-wing philosophy: Your free speech and free press rights do not extend to the point of spending millions and millions on political propaganda which might influence voters.

And the Left-wingers are wrong -- free speech/free press does extend to that. Everyone (including every group) should be free to spend all they want promoting their ideas, theories -- even political, controversial, religious or antireligious, etc., regardless whether it might influence voters. As long as everyone is equally free to try to influence voters, there's no reason to limit someone's freedom to do this. There's no need for a deterrent to this, such as there's a need for a deterrent to crime. Publishing propaganda in order to influence someone is not criminal.

Let's suppose 2 restrictions which might be harmless: 1) no donating beyond some limit to a particular candidate; and 2) no naming candidate Joe Doaks and saying something like "VOTE FOR Joe Doaks," etc.

Granting those two qualifiers, there's no reason why they should not be free to spend all they want on their own political propaganda independent from a candidate.

It's better for the wealthy to spend millions on political propaganda to distribute than to spend it on another Yacht or Private Jet.

Maybe TAX that excess political spending. Perhaps assess a tax on such political propaganda spending (maybe limited to propaganda issued during an election season). This is a legitimate possibility to consider. BUT NOT CENSORSHIP!

. . . the truth is it invalidated laws that had legally restricted corporate political spending for decades — laws upheld . . .

laws going way back to 1900/1800 or earlier? or just back to 1990? What kind of "corporate political spending" did those laws restrict? How many political books were censored (by gov't) or suppressed from being published or distributed? Probably there were many laws of this kind, some OK and others in violation of free speech. If we look at each case, we'd find some bad laws there, which should not have existed. In general, publications should not be censored if it's only because of controversy and conflict among opposing interests, and if there's nothing slanderous or illegal being published and promoted. Censorship should not become a means to suppress someone else's beliefs or political theories or manifesto, or even exposé against someone in power -- including incumbent politicians running in the election.

If the only rule is that the publisher may not name a current candidate, and that's the only limitation on it, then this free press abridgement might be negligible. But the best policy is no censorship whatever of any political propaganda of any kind, no matter what it says, and no matter whose political position might be threatened by it. There's no need to protect famous celebrity-politicians from being targeted by propagandists trying to bring them down. That's the kind of propaganda which the FEC was trying to censor here.

. . . by multiple previous Supreme Court rulings.

Rulings about what? about suppressing political speech? I'm skeptical that there was censorship of political propaganda funded by anyone rich or poor (which is what this is about). If there was, then it was wrong. They should not prohibit the distribution of any propaganda promoting this or that political cause, even if it might influence voters and change the outcome of an election. Any such law should be overturned as violating 1st Amendment rights.

The laws have been mainly against bribery, including donating to a candidate with a quid pro quo attached to the deal. Everyone agrees that such bribery as that has to be illegal. What were the political "spending limits"? These were mainly limits on donations to a candidate. I doubt you can name a case where someone's political propaganda was banned or suppressed. But if you're right (maybe you're right and there was such censorship), it was wrong, violating the 1st Amendment. Even if it dates back to the Founding Fathers. Some early practices (slavery) were unconstitutional, so it's not automatically legitimate just because it was done from an early date. Censorship, suppression of free speech, was always unconstitutional, even if Citizens United is the first time it was finally overturned.

That’s not reaffirmation. That's . . .

Yes it was reaffirmation. If there was a case of censorship and the Court overruled it, they were reaffirming the 1st Amendment, by protecting free speech/press.

Google Search question: Did the Citizens United case reaffirm free speech rights?

Google answer: Yes, the Citizens United case reaffirmed free speech rights, specifically the right of corporations and unions to engage in political spending.

"reaffirmed" -- corporations had free speech rights prior to Citizens United, going back centuries. And this case reaffirmed those rights, when they were threatened by FEC regulations. Overturning state laws which might have also threatened free speech was not the direct point of this case. Rather, it was to determine a free speech issue provoked by the FEC regulations, or FEC's enforcement of regulations. It's a simple rule for a democratic nation to follow: No gov't suppression of basic free speech rights.

The Supreme Court ruled that laws restricting the independent spending of corporations and unions on electioneering communications violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. This decision significantly expanded the scope of what constitutes protected political speech, allowing . . .

I think Google's answer here is partly mistaken. ". . . expanded the scope of what constitutes protected political speech . . ." can't mean that the 1st Amendment was changed by this decision. Rather, it was the new propaganda speech which now becomes protected, because such propaganda did not exist earlier, due to the lesser technology. So this new propagandizing now became included as some of the speech protected by the 1st Amendment. It was not protected earlier only because it didn't exist earlier.

The 1st Amendment protection is for ALL speech, or ALL public expression, such as all kinds of political speech and propaganda. So with new technology there emerged some new forms of speech not earlier taking place, new ways to use technology to improve the propaganda. And these too are entitled to 1st Amendment protection. Producing propaganda films or videos in ways more effective than ever before -- it's a new type of propaganda now entering our culture, similar to a human newcomer from an alien culture. This newcomer, or this new kind of propaganda speech showing up, is not to be treated differently, but is to be given the same place in the system as the old kinds of speech, and protected. Protected speech! same as before.

. . . allowing corporations and unions to contribute financially to political campaigns without direct restrictions.

"to political campaigns" means their own independent campaigns separate from any official candidate running in an election. Same as always, but now this freedom is allowed to a new kind of speech, which also should be protected by the 1st Amendment. So the 1st Amendment is left the same as before. But now there are some new forms of speech also covered by the 1st Amendment.

Key points of the Citizens United decision:

• Independent Expenditures:
  The court struck down restrictions on independent expenditures, meaning spending by groups not directly coordinating with a candidate or campaign.
  
  
• Corporate and Union Speech:
  The decision clarified that corporations and unions, like individuals, have the right to political speech, including spending money to support or oppose candidates.
  
  
• First Amendment Protection:
  The Court ruled that restricting independent spending by corporations and unions is a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Google Search question:
What in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) was overturned in Citizens United (2010)?

Google answer:

In Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), the Supreme Court upheld a state law prohibiting corporations from using their treasury funds for independent expenditures in political campaigns, arguing that this restriction didn't violate the First Amendment. The Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), however, overturned this part of the Austin ruling. Specifically, Citizens United invalidated the prohibition on independent expenditures by corporations, a key part of the Austin decision.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce:
  This case established that the government could restrict corporate spending on political campaigns to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption. The Court reasoned that large corporate expenditures could distort the political landscape and give an unfair advantage to certain interests.
• Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm[ission:
  In this landmark case, the Supreme Court struck down the ban on corporate independent expenditures, arguing that it violated the First Amendment. The Court's majority reasoned that corporations should have the same right to engage in political speech as individuals, and that the government should not be able to dictate how much money can be spent on political communications. The Court also stated that the "distorting effect" of large corporate expenditures was not a sufficient reason to restrict speech, and that any government control on political spending should be tied to quid pro quo corruption, meaning a direct exchange of money for a political favor.

Summary. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overruling an earlier decision, Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (Austin), that allowed prohibitions on independent expenditures by corporations.

This explanation makes it clear that the Michigan law also interfered with free speech rights, like the FEC proposed to do against the Citizens United company. Any group or individual is entitled to spend whatever they want on political propaganda, regardless whether it might influence voters, or cause the election outcome to change. The need to overturn this law is that this right should not be infringed only because of possible influence on voters. It's not wrong for anyone to publish something with the intention to influence voters. The FEC ruling also was overturned for the same reason.






Google Search question:
What in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) was overturned by Citizens United (2010)?

Google answer:

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the Supreme Court overturned the provision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) that allowed the government to restrict corporate and union spending on electioneering communications. Specifically, Citizens United struck down the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's ban on corporations and unions using their general treasury funds for electioneering, a ruling that significantly expanded the scope of corporate and union political spending.

Elaboration:

• McConnell v. FEC (2003):
  In this case, the Court largely upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), including provisions limiting "soft money" donations and electioneering communications. It also upheld the ban on corporations and unions using their general treasury funds for express advocacy or electioneering.
  
  
• Citizens United v. FEC (2010):
  This case centered on Citizens United's challenge to BCRA provisions that restricted their use of funds for a documentary about Hillary Clinton before the 2008 election. The Court sided with Citizens United, arguing that these restrictions violated the First Amendment by suppressing political speech.
  
  
• Key Impact:
  The Citizens United decision invalidated the BCRA's ban on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions, effectively allowing them to spend unlimited amounts on political advertising. The Court acknowledged the importance of political speech but asserted that the government cannot suppress it altogether, even when it comes from corporations.
  
  
• Implications:
  The decision has led to the creation of Super PACs and other organizations that can raise and spend unlimited sums on political campaigns, leading to increased political influence from wealthy donors and corporations.

Again, the basic ruling here is to guarantee the right of all "people" (which includes all groups of any kind) to publish political propaganda without restriction or censorship. The complaint that the propaganda might influence voters or even change the election outcome is not a sufficient excuse to abrogate 1st Amendment protection of free speech.

 

[Swammerdami]

[Babble babble babble babble babble.
Babble babble babble babble babble.
Babble babble babble babble babble.
Babble babble babble babble babble.
Babble babble babble babble babble.]

Digital steganography is an interesting craft. But before we waste much time, can you confirm that there IS an interesting secret message embedded in the babble?

(this Wall of Text to be continued)

So, its a particularly LONG secret message? And will that secret message, once decrypted, itself contain a shorter embedded message? I'm still hoping to learn Delilah Lakshmi's Instagram handle. Is that the piece of cheese awaiting if we solve the maze?

ignore this post.

No problem.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

1st Amendment free speech can adapt to modern technology, need not be scrapped.
NO CENSORSHIP! should still be the rule.

That’s a radical shift in the interpretation of the First Amendment.

A shift back toward free speech and free press is a good shift. It's only the nutcase wackos who say "Corporations are not people and so don't have 1st Amendment rights." They're making that up. The law has always recognized the free speech rights of everyone, including all groups. No one is defining what the difference is between groups which are "people" and have rights vs. the corporations which are "not people" and have no 1st Amendment rights. Nothing about that was changed, in this decision.

It's assumed that the excess political spending would be done only by large megacorps, but the truth is that other entities than only corporations could also do similar spending on propaganda. And they probably will, as the technology to propagandize becomes still more advanced, and less costly. It's a general trend in economics for the super-rich (followed by the moderately rich) to first take advantage of anything new, like new technology. But soon others also take advantage of it.

Left-wingers wrongly assumed it was only about corporate (or megacorp) spending, since this is maybe the only large-scale spending there is for political propaganda -- for now. But that won't be the case much longer. Almost certainly there are already cases of a group not incorporated also spending large sums on political propaganda which could influence elections. And rich tycoons as well. It's not true that use of the new technologies to influence the masses through the media will be limited to only the megacorps, or corporations, or the rich.

So if you truly believe Citizens United didn’t “grant” new powers to corporations, then I challenge you to answer this: Why did the law have to be changed?

What definitely had to be changed was the FEC's decision that the propaganda film from that company should be restricted. Probably not much "law" was changed, but only the interpretation that someone's propaganda should be restricted, which includes an order restricting how much $$ they could spend on the propaganda. But maybe too some misguided state laws are also affected, indirectly. They should not enact laws which try to censor anything, or use censorship as enforcement -- as long as the propaganda being promoted doesn't contain something criminal or treasonous.

Why were the restrictions in Austin and McConnell struck down?

I have to assume they were "struck down" only insofar as they might have led to censorship of political propaganda. If it was only a limit on straightforward donating to a candidate, the Citizens United case did not overrule it. But propaganda from someone independent of the candidate could be interpreted as a "donation" to the candidate if it influenced voters, e.g., by attacking his/her opponent. I can only assume that in those cases also there was a censorship issue, or denial of 1st Amendment rights of those publishing political propaganda.

Citizens United did not overrule the limits on campaign donations. Rather, it overruled the censoring or suppressing of political propaganda of someone independent of the official candidate's campaign. This is a line which should not be crossed. You or I or any group big or small, rich or poor, should be free to publish all the political propaganda we wish, to the billions of $$$$ worth, with the qualifier that we cannot donate such funds outright to a particular candidate. But we should be free to spend it on our propaganda which might support this or that candidate, or more likely, propaganda which aims at trashing one candidate to the benefit of his/her opponent.

This kind of advertising is becoming more and more cost-efficient and effective as a weapon against elected politicians who are popular celebrities but who are vulnerable to being damaged by bad publicity.

Because the answer is simple: Before Citizens United, corporate political spending was limited by law.

What kind of spending do you mean? There are many different kinds of "political spending" -- if you mean donations to a candidate, that is still the case -- there are still limits on that.

In this case it's about spending on a film (or could be any kind of publication), which is not the same as a donation to a candidate. How was that limited by law 50 or 100 years ago? Are you saying such propaganda was prohibited to corporations? what about to noncorporate groups? or to individuals (like a wealthy tycoon)? Were such propaganda projects censored or suppressed in some cases? what cases? I don't believe there was any such censorship as the FEC proposed to do in this case. Am I wrong? What's an example? What earlier case was there of a political film or publication being suppressed by a gov't agency? prohibiting its distribution?

I'm skeptical that there was such censorship of political propaganda. Such propaganda was probably very limited, because it wasn't very effective and so not used -- its time had not yet come. So hardly anyone did it. It was too expensive for a corporation to spend a million $$$ on such propaganda and get a return worth that investment. But today it's different.

Today it's effective, and even a small group, not wealthy, might raise enough to pay for it and gain a benefit for their side of a public issue. So the censorship would be something new, and would be a violation of the 1st Amendment protection.

. . . spending was limited by law. After . . .

"spending" on what? "limited" how? Were there books and films banned or censored? suppressed from being circulated to the public? restricted from appearing on some media platforms? What censorship are you claiming took place? preventing political propaganda from being published and influencing voters?

. . . limited by law. After Citizens United, it wasn’t.

If "limited by law" means books or films etc. were censored or banned, and if that's true, then those were cases of 1st Amendment violation. and they were unconstitutional. There should be no such suppression of free speech today, and neither should there have been 100 or 200 years ago. To restrict a video or film from being displayed on TV or Internet is suppression of it, censorship, denial of 1st Amendment rights. So it's not the law which has changed, or the application or interpretation of law. It's only that recently there are new forms of propaganda publishing giving more power to propagandists, and with it, a greater desire for censorship from those offended by the propaganda.


more mass media today = more potential to influence the masses

= more occasion to propagandize/publish


What has changed is the technology making the propaganda more effective today. Like a new invention or tool to do something which would have been used earlier if it had been available. Now it's available, and Left-wingers want to suppress it. They never suppressed it before -- 100 years ago -- because it was not there to be used -- no need to suppress something that isn't there. But now it's there, because of technology change -- that's where the change is, not in that court case. The imperative to free speech/press should not be any different just because of this change in technology. There should still be no suppression of political speech/press.

Because the answer is simple: Before Citizens United, corporate political spending was limited by law.

Whatever that means, it probably was not censorship. And even if it's true that there was censorship, it was wrong and should have been overturned by the Court. But the real factor was probably the lesser technology back then, and so a much lower volume of political propaganda than today.

As to the donations to candidates, that is still limited by law = no change there.

. . . spending was limited by law. After Citizens United, it wasn't. That is the change.

OK, for a few years there were some new laws trying to limit free speech, because of the new propaganda technologies. That was a small change happening, and then Citizens United struck down those laws which abrogated free speech rights. It's the new propagandizing technology that was the major change, so that now there's so much more to spend money on, so much more occasion to propagandize. And now you're demanding still MORE CHANGE in response.

You're demanding abandonment of 1st Amendment rights as a response to the change, because you think free speech/press is unable to handle this change in the science and technology of propaganda. Some changes are good, but not all change. Abandoning the 1st Amendment protections is not a good change, and the need is not drastic, as you imagine.

It's not a major change to put limits on donations to candidates. But to introduce censorship now is a big change, and it's one not needed or desirable, because cracking down on propaganda publishers is a suppression of freedom which will do more harm than good.



Win by proving you're right,
not by censoring the other side.

No one should be free to publish absolutely anything imaginable, but to censor political publishing only to suppress someone for their political bias, or to "level the playing field" to make it more "fair" or equal, in order to block the bad guy from defeating their opponent or the opposing party, is a false kind of change which we don't need, because it requires abolishing 1st Amendment protection of basic rights. These are too fundamental. You cannot prove that your particular lofty political vision or theory of fairness is so important that free speech/press needs to be curtailed in order to prevent some opposing idea from succeeding because it used technology more successfully.

Rather, you have to find some alternative approach to combatting the political propaganda which you think threatens you or your side. Maybe your side needs to learn how also to use the new propagandizing technology.

More censorship would have resulted if Citizens United had not settled this by overruling the decision to restrict this film (or similar propaganda) from being distributed. The FEC decision was for censorship (maybe in a very limited form, but we must not begin to go down that path). The FEC has to have a NO CENSORSHIP! period! rule imposed onto it. That's the simple resolution of this.

And the idiot masses can go on chanting their meaningless "Corporations are not people!" dog-whistle slogan all they wish, if it makes them feel good -- that's all it is -- just a vulgar outcry to express their hate of some scapegoat they imagine is "the corporations" somewhere, though they have no idea who this scapegoat really is. Possibly the "super-rich" or something similar. "The Bourgeoisie" = just the simplistic class warfare fanaticism of the dogmatic Marxist Left.

Whatever it is, the main point is that they need to direct their stampede away from the censorship route. Censoring those on the other side is not the way to go. And this censorship of political opponents could easily backfire on these dissidents, if the other side takes power in Washington and needs to silence their opponents.

And denying that only reveals you haven’t read the decision — or . . .

I plead guilty to that. Are you saying that the company Citizens United never really produced any film, or that no order was issued to them (or would have been by the FEC) restricting their right to distribute this film? That's what I'm saying happened, and the Court overruled the FEC on this, giving that company legal permission to distribute its film for broadcast by air or Internet etc. without interference from the FEC.

Do you have facts from "the decision" showing otherwise? that the film production or distribution was never threatened by the FEC? Could you quote from that part of the decision which said corporations were "not people" before but will now become people? and also that they are now to enjoy 1st Amendment rights for the first time, which they didn't have before as legal persons? being changed from "not people" to people as a result of this decision? No, there's nothing in "the decision" saying that corporations are now to change from "not people" to "people," as the "corporations-are-not-people" fanatics keep repeating.

. . . or you’re unwilling to admit what it actually did.

I thought what it did is overrule the FEC which said the film's distribution should be restricted and prevented from showing somewhere because it would influence voters and possibly even change an election outcome. Which would violate FEC regulations.

That's not what the case was about? that's not what the decision did? It had nothing to do with any political propaganda film which the FEC wanted to restrict from being distributed during an election period?

 

[bilby]

ignore this post.

Are you kidding?

Ot's the only one you've made in this thread thats short enough that I didn't.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Do we need U.S. Government CENSORSHIP of movies?


What movies/films have been banned or censored or suppressed by the U.S. gov't.? It's difficult to get a clear answer to this question. The answer may be NONE. Wouldn't it be helpful to have a straightforward answer to this, before we start banning or censoring or suppressing political movies in the 21st century? at any level? to any degree? If the movie does not advocate criminal acts or insurrection, etc., why should it be banned or restricted at all, even for a short time?

Google gives some cases, but look at who it is that banned or censored these. It was not the U.S. gov't. Except (almost) one case:

• FEC prohibiting the broadcast of a political documentary "Hillary: The Movie"

Had the FEC not been reversed, by the Supreme Court, in Citizens United, this might have been the first case ever of the U.S. Govt. censoring a movie. Right? Or was there any previous case?

Would we want this or other federal agency to become the first case of a U.S. Government ban or censorship of a movie? Or, were there any other examples of the U.S. Govt. banning a movie?


Google Search question: has any political movie been restricted by the U.S. govt?

Google answer:

Yes, certain political movies have been restricted or banned by the U.S. government. The U.S. government has historically used various means to censor or restrict politically sensitive films, including outright bans, interference with distribution, and through the influence of the Hays Code and other regulatory bodies.

Here are a few examples:

• "Scarface" (1932):
  This film was banned in several cities and states due to its portrayal of organized crime and gangster life, leading to the film being removed from circulation.
  
  
• "The March of Time" documentary:
  Banned in Chicago due to its content, which was deemed politically controversial.
  
  
• "The Pawnbroker" and British films of the 1960s:
  These films, which dealt with themes of race, class, gender, and sexuality, initially faced challenges due to the Hollywood Production Code, but ultimately gained release as the Code was reevaluated.
  
  
• Citizens United v. FEC:
  This case involved the FEC prohibiting the broadcast of a political documentary "Hillary: The Movie" and related advertisements, as the FEC determined it violated the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Google Search question: Who banned the movie "Scarface"?

Google answer:

The 1932 film "Scarface" was initially banned or heavily censored by several state and local censorship boards in the United States, primarily due to its violent and sympathetic portrayal of mobsters. The film faced scrutiny from the Motion Picture Production Code (Hays Code) and was rejected by the Chicago Film Review Board.


Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Censorship Issues:
  The film's graphic violence and portrayal of gangsters, particularly the sympathetic depiction of Tony Camonte, led to its initial rejection by various censorship boards.
  
  
• State and City Bans:
  Specific states like Virginia and Kansas, along with cities like Detroit, Seattle, Portland, and Chicago, banned the film.
  
  
• New York Censor Boards:
  The New York censor boards also rejected the film's release initially.
  
  
• Release After Edits:
  After making significant cuts and changes to the film, including removing scenes deemed overly sexual and adding a prologue condemning gangsters, "Scarface" was eventually released in a censored version.
  
  
• Hays Code and Jason Joy:
  The Motion Picture Production Code (Hays Code) and its administrator, Jason Joy, played a role in persuading the censor boards to allow the film's release, particularly after the necessary edits were made, according to Screen Culture.
  
  
• Public Support:
  Hughes, the film's producer, also rallied public support and challenged the censor boards, contributing to the film's eventual release.

Google Search question: Who banned the movie "The March of Time"?

Google answer:

The documentary film "Inside Nazi Germany," which was part of the "March of Time" series, was banned by the Chicago Board of Censors in 1938, citing its content as "unfriendly to the German government," according to Wikipedia and IMDb. However, Police Commissioner James P. Allman overturned the ban. Additionally, Warner Bros. refused to show the film in any of its theaters. The film was also briefly banned in Pennsylvania due to portions being labeled as "part of the fear propaganda being disseminated by Germany."

Google Search question: Who banned the movie "The Pawnbroker"?

Google answer:

The film "The Pawnbroker" was not banned in a strict legal sense. Instead, it faced significant controversy and condemnation by various groups, including the National Legion of Decency, a Catholic organization. They condemned the film "for the sole reason that nudity has been used," according to Wikipedia. Jewish groups also objected, believing it promoted stereotypes. While the film was initially denied the Production Code Administration's seal of approval due to the nudity, Cine Outsider it was eventually released with minimal cuts.

The film's controversial content, including its portrayal of a Holocaust survivor grappling with the trauma of the Holocaust, caused it to be rejected by many distributors, leading to a delay in its US release until 1965, Cine Outsider.

In summary, "The Pawnbroker" was not banned, but it faced widespread criticism and condemnation, particularly from religious groups and those who felt it perpetuated stereotypes, leading to delays and difficulties in its release.

"Corporations are not people" = The U.S. Gov't should ban or censor or suppress certain films because they are too political or controversial.

 

[NoHolyCows]

Lumpen,

Let’s cut through the spin: you keep insisting Citizens United merely “reaffirmed” corporate First Amendment rights, but that claim collapses under the weight of legal history and the very outcome of the case.

If corporate political spending had always been fully protected, there would’ve been nothing to strike down. Yet the Court explicitly overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and part of McConnell v. FEC (2003)—two binding precedents that upheld limits on corporate electioneering. Those weren’t vague regulatory tweaks—they were established law, upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court. Citizens United was the break. It was a doctrinal shift, not a continuity.

You keep sidestepping that reality because it undermines your central point: that corporations “always had” these rights. No, they didn’t—not for electioneering. The Court expanded the definition of protected political speech to include unlimited independent expenditures by corporations and unions, something Austin had explicitly prohibited for two decades. That’s not reaffirmation. That’s reversal. You can’t claim the law was always on their side and then explain away the Court’s need to overturn precedent.

You also accuse opponents of censorship, but this is a false dilemma. Citizens United wasn’t about banning political opinions—it was about whether corporations could spend unlimited treasury funds on election messaging. We’ve always distinguished between speech and amplification through money—just like we distinguish between the right to speak in public and the right to drown everyone else out with a megaphone. Saying “money is speech” is a sleight of hand that ignores the democratic cost of letting those with the deepest pockets control the volume.

And here’s the deeper irony: in trying to defend corporate power under the guise of protecting free speech, you’ve argued yourself into a corner. Because if—as you say—corporations are merely groups of people, then all those people already have individual rights. What Citizens United did was aggregate and amplify those voices into a single, massively funded megaphone, allowing a boardroom to outshout millions of individual citizens. That’s not equal speech—it’s dominance disguised as liberty.

So no—you haven’t “proven” Citizens United was just a defense of old rights. You’ve shown you didn’t absorb the decision, didn’t acknowledge the precedents it overturned, and haven’t reconciled the consequences it unleashed.

Your argument disproves itself. And the record doesn’t lie.

NHC

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Tell us the difference between
a "corporation" vs. a noncorporation
such that the corporation is "not people" and has no 1st Amendment rights,
while the noncorporation is people with 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 . . .

Yes, like New York and Chicago and Los Angeles and La Mesa CA and other cities are also legal fictions. And California and Vermont and other states are legal fictions. And like Mexico and Luxembourg and China and Poland etc. are legal fictions. And yet each of these legal fictions is "people" and has (singular) rights, the same as an individual human person has rights.

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

No, most corporations existed before they became incorporated, so they were not created by the state. Each one made the choice to incorporate, after it already existed.

. . . created by the state, not a natural rights-bearing person. The people . . .

It's OK to say they don't have "natural" rights, just as cities and states don't have natural rights. But for legal purposes they are persons with 1st Amendment rights, like free speech.

1st Amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances."


Google Search question: Do corporations have the right to free speech?

Google answer:

Yes, corporations have the right to free speech, protected by the First Amendment, but this right is not without limitations. Specifically, corporations can engage in political and commercial speech, but restrictions on these types of speech are subject to scrutiny under a four-pronged test.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
1. First Amendment Protection:

• The First Amendment protects corporations' right to free speech, which includes both political speech and commercial speech.
• The Supreme Court has recognized that corporations are associations of individuals and therefore entitled to free speech rights.

2. Commercial Speech:

• Commercial speech, such as advertising, is also protected by the First Amendment.
• However, restrictions on commercial speech are subject to a four-pronged test to determine their validity.
• First Prong: False, deceptive, or misleading advertisements need not be permitted.
• Second Prong: The government must assert a substantial interest to be achieved by the restriction on commercial speech.
• Third Prong: The restriction must directly advance the government's asserted interest.
• Fourth Prong: The restriction must be narrowly tailored to achieve the asserted interest.

Yes, there are rules limiting commercial speech, but these limits don't apply only to corporations, but also to noncorporations and to individuals. It's mainly about fraud, and the above "four-pronged" test may not be restrictive enough. There should be tough standards applied to ALL those engaging in any kind of commerce, to keep them honest and accountable to the public, to consumers. But there are no limits to their political speech, nor should there be. As long as the speech is noncriminal, there should be no censorship of political speech, or any speech about ideas and controversy.

3. Political Speech:

• Corporations can engage in political speech, such as contributions and expenditures on behalf of candidates and political issues.
  
  
• The Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) held that a regulation banning corporate and union spending in political elections violated the First Amendment.

4. Limitations:

• While corporations have free speech rights, these rights are not absolute.
  
  
• The government can place restrictions on corporate speech in certain circumstances, such as when it is false, deceptive, or misleading.
  
  
• Additionally, corporate speech can be restricted if it incites violence or is otherwise illegal.
  
  
• Restrictions on corporate speech are subject to judicial review and must be narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate government interest.

Again, these restrictions on corporate speech are just as rightly imposed onto ALL groups and individuals. You individually cannot promote anything illegal, and there are even limits on false or deceptive or misleading speech, depending on the possible damage it might cause. (E.g. if you lie that the building is on fire and there's a panic in which people get killed, you are guilty of a crime.) So there's hardly any extra limits on corporate speech beyond what also applies to ALL groups and even to all individuals.


Google Search question: Do corporations have 1st Amendment rights?

Google answer:

Yes, corporations have First Amendment rights, which means they are protected from government censorship when engaging in speech. The Supreme Court has recognized that corporations have a right to political speech and commercial speech. However, it's important to note that this right is not absolute and can be subject to certain limitations.

Here's a more detailed look:

• Political Speech:
  Corporations have the right to engage in political speech, including contributions and expenditures on behalf of candidates and political issues. The Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) significantly expanded this right.

Did Citizens United really expand this right significantly? It struck down some recent threats to free speech, from the recent law and regulations enforced by FEC, and also some other recent laws which threatened free speech. But it's hard to find anything it struck down from 50 or 100 or 200 years earlier.

What earlier federal or state law was (or would have been) overturned by Citizens United? What such case was there 100 or so years ago, of a local or state law which would have been reversed by Citizens United, if there had been such a case and if the Supreme Court back then had the same sentiment to protect corporations as our recent Court? Can you name one case? I doubt it. And yet, if there might have been such a case, still the same principle applied then as today, and if there was a restriction on publishing a film or book or other kind of propaganda, that then was a suppression of free speech which violated the 1st Amendment.

• Commercial Speech:
  Corporations also have the right to engage in commercial speech, such as advertising their products. However, this right is not absolute, and the government can regulate commercial speech that is false, deceptive, or misleading, or if the government has a substantial interest in regulating the speech.
  
  
• Limitations:
  While corporations have First Amendment rights, these rights are not unlimited. The government can restrict corporate speech in certain situations, such as when it is false, deceptive, or misleading, or if it poses a clear and present danger.
  
  
• Corporate Personhood:
  Corporations are considered legal entities, and the Supreme Court has recognized their right to certain constitutional protections, including those under the First Amendment, according to Purdue Global Law School.

Again, there is nothing which makes corporations any less protected by the 1st Amendment than noncorporations or individuals. The same qualifiers apply to ALL groups and individuals. And, in ALL court cases, criminal or civil etc., there are special considerations, unusual circumstances to be taken into account, so that there is discretion allowed to both the jury and the judge, and so obviously a powerful corporation or executive could be held to a tougher standard for some cases. Nothing about this says that all parties are equal and are given equal penalties if found guilty of the same technical violation. Those in higher responsibility are held to higher standards.

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

And so does the corporation as a single entity have 1st Amendment rights -- even before Citizens United they had 1st Amendment rights. The corporation is legally "people" or a "person" which can donate, speak, protest, and publish, and which has those same 1st Amendment rights.

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

Yes, but the corporation already had that power, those rights, even before the Citizens United case. The Court only reaffirmed these rights, which at that time some wanted to take away. FEC denial of free speech to Citizens United would have abridged that corporation's 1st Amendment right to free speech, which it already had prior to this case, so that the Court here simply reaffirmed those rights which had already been proper to corporations long before that case.

. . . can spend unlimited money on political influence, even if many of the people inside it disagree. That’s . . .

That's true of all groups, including all corporations and noncorporations, which each can make its decisions, can choose to promote this or that cause, can spend money, can hold meetings, publish propaganda, oppose or support political candidates, can protest, hold rallies, convert people, do controversial activities -- any of which might be opposed by some of the group's members. Even if a percent of the group are overruled, even a majority in some cases, the group still makes its decisions and is a legally-recognized person with rights protected by the 1st Amendment, including the right to choose to publish or protest or crusade for a cause.

. . . not about protecting people’s speech — it’s . . .

Yes it is -- it's about protecting the corporation's free speech rights, just as anyone else's free speech rights are protected. Just as a city or state or nation can make a choice which a majority of citizens might disagree with -- even so that (minority-led) group has the right to speak and make decisions and support or oppose something, depending on its procedures. The regime in office makes the decisions for the group, which then goes a course which many members disagree with, who are overruled.

E.g. a labor union often makes decisions which the membership is not allowed to vote on. But this process is still one which has the group's voice be that of the leadership of the group -- even if they're a minority, which makes the decisions for the group. That group is still "people" regardless that sometimes the leadership acts contrary to the majority sentiment among the many members. That group has free speech rights, exercised by those leading the group, which is "people" choosing a certain course; and to suppress or silence the leadership is depriving that group of its free speech rights. In many cases there's a faith that the group's mission will succeed, for everyone's good, even though there's majority opposition at a critical moment.


the group good vs. the individual good

There are cases of the social good being at odds with the good of each individual, who has to sacrifice for the good of the whole group. So, merely that there is majority discontent with the nondemocratic choice made does not mean the group is a "not people" tyranny having no rights. Acting as a group in that case is still for the best overall, and it's not necessarily best to hold a majority vote on every decision.

Even when it's a top-down decision in some cases, this inequality is inevitable or necessary in the particular case, where perhaps doing everything democratically would lead to a worse outcome. The whole group might be too large and cumbersome for it to be carved up into voting precincts and secret ballots for all the individuals with guarantees that the majority will always decide every small issue. It's not only corporations which might overrule the majority sentiment in those cases, but it's also NONcorporate groups which have the same difficulty trying to protect each individual's voice within the group decision-making.

So if this undemocratic element makes it "not people" -- OK then it's not just corporations which are "not people" in this sense, but NONcorporate groups also. A club, church, school, basketball team, debating society, dance party, circus, picnic -- for any of these there can easily be a small clique in charge, making the decisions, over-ruling many/most of the participants who each think they could run it better.

It's about magnifying institutional power, and . . .

"institutional power"? Whaz'at? Is it always bad for "institutional power" to be magnified? Maybe sometimes a necessary purpose is served by having institutional power magnified up to a point. Institutions are not automatically something bad. What "institutional power" is it that's magnified? and why must it always be bad?

. . . and that’s why many see it as a distortion of First Amendment protections.

So an increased institution has to always mean a distortion of the First Amendment? Why? Maybe a magnified institution can serve to promote 1st Amendment protections. What "institutional power" is magnified, and why is that necessarily bad? Why does magnified "institutional power" always mean "distortion" of the 1st Amendment? Suppose Democrats increase and win back power -- that would be a magnification of that Party (= an institution), and thus magnification of institutional power = "distortion" of the Constitution?

So this means some censorship or denial of free speech is necessary to prevent a certain institutional power somewhere from being magnified? So we must censor some corporation from publishing their political propaganda, because otherwise their "institutional power" would get magnified? because the propaganda they promote might favor the wrong candidate? and if the wrong candidate gets elected it's a threat to the good guys because of that magnified "institutional power" which inevitably must happen if a corporation is allowed to distribute its political propaganda?

This can't be how we decide to impose censorship onto some groups, claiming they're "not people" vs. other groups which presumably are in the "people" category where they're allowed to keep their 1st Amendment rights. You have to come up with some explanation better than this.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[NoHolyCows]

Tell us the difference between
a "corporation" vs. a noncorporation
such that the corporation is "not people" and has no 1st Amendment rights,
while the noncorporation is people with 1st Amendment rights.

You’ve asked—again—what makes a corporation different from a noncorporate group such that the former could be regulated differently under the First Amendment. But the truth is: this question has already been answered, repeatedly, both in this discussion and by the very rulings Citizens United overturned.

The distinction is simple and legally grounded:

A corporation is a legal entity created by the state. It does not exist without statutory privilege. It is not a natural person. It is not formed to express conscience or participate in civic discourse—it is formed to conduct business, maximize shareholder value, and in most cases, limit liability. That matters. That’s why for most of U.S. history, it was entirely constitutional to place limits on its political activity, especially when that activity involved spending vast sums to influence elections.

In contrast, a noncorporate group is not a state-created legal fiction. It’s a collection of people exercising their individual rights. The fact that the state grants corporations some rights does not mean they are identical to people, nor that those rights are absolute.

And here’s the irony: Citizens United only needed to exist because this distinction was real and meaningful. If corporations already had unlimited First Amendment rights, there would have been no case to decide, no precedents to overturn, no laws struck down.

So when you ask yet again, “What’s the difference?”, I have to wonder: Are you genuinely asking—or just refusing to hear the answer? Because the record, the rulings, and this entire thread have made the answer clear.

NHC

 

[ZiprHead]

Tell us the difference between
a "corporation" vs. a noncorporation
such that the corporation is "not people" and has no 1st Amendment rights,
while the noncorporation is people with 1st Amendment rights.

You’ve asked—again—what makes a corporation different from a noncorporate group such that the former could be regulated differently under the First Amendment. But the truth is: this question has already been answered, repeatedly, both in this discussion and by the very rulings Citizens United overturned.

The distinction is simple and legally grounded:

A corporation is a legal entity created by the state. It does not exist without statutory privilege. It is not a natural person. It is not formed to express conscience or participate in civic discourse—it is formed to conduct business, maximize shareholder value, and in most cases, limit liability. That matters. That’s why for most of U.S. history, it was entirely constitutional to place limits on its political activity, especially when that activity involved spending vast sums to influence elections.

In contrast, a noncorporate group is not a state-created legal fiction. It’s a collection of people exercising their individual rights. The fact that the state grants corporations some rights does not mean they are identical to people, nor that those rights are absolute.

And here’s the irony: Citizens United only needed to exist because this distinction was real and meaningful. If corporations already had unlimited First Amendment rights, there would have been no case to decide, no precedents to overturn, no laws struck down.

So when you ask yet again, “What’s the difference?”, I have to wonder: Are you genuinely asking—or just refusing to hear the answer? Because the record, the rulings, and this entire thread have made the answer clear.

NHC

Give it up, NHC. Lumpy's been doing this schtick for years. He has absolutely no intention of actually having an intellectual exchange of ideas and opinions. My guess is everytime you write a well written, concise, and accurate response, he soils himself as he laughs at how he got the egghead to waste his time writing a response back to his bullshit.

It's too bad we're not allowed to call him exactly what we all know he is.

 

[bilby]

It's too bad we're not allowed to call him exactly what we all know he is.

If only you were a corporation, you would have the first amendment right to do so.

 

[unapologetic]

What movies/films have been banned or censored or suppressed by the U.S. gov't.? It's difficult to get a clear answer to this question. The answer may be NONE.

How young ARE you?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What movies/films have been banned or censored or suppressed by the U.S. gov't.? It's difficult to get a clear answer to this question. The answer may be NONE.

How young ARE you?

Stop being superficial.

I obviously meant "political" films. I repeated that word "political" over and over several times. So I omitted it that once. Don't you pay attention to the context? the substance? is it only a "gotcha" that you care about? Is that all you have to offer? Why can't you deal with the fact that this was about CENSORSHIP?

I.e., censorship of "political propaganda"

So, what earlier cases have there been of censorship of political propaganda (by the U.S. gov't) such as a political film or book? Name a case, if you're so mature and well-versed in this topic.

If you and NoHolyCows can't give an example, it proves my point.

 

[unapologetic]

If you and NoHolyCows can't give an example, it proves my point.

Joseph McCarthy didn't need to ban any films.
He just black balled hundreds of wrighters. Got the whole film industry to censor itsself.

If you could make your point quicker, and without SHOUTING. I for one, would appreacieat it.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

If you and NoHolyCows can't give an example, it proves my point.

Joseph McCarthy didn't need to ban any films.
He just black balled hundreds of wrighters. Got the whole film industry to censor itsself.

If you could make your point quicker, and without SHOUTING. I for one, would appreciate it.

translation: The U.S. gov't has never yet censored or restricted any political books or films or other political propaganda. Except in 2008 when the FEC restricted the political film Hillary: The Movie produced by Citizens United Inc. This censorship by the FEC was overruled by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case, where it was decided that corporations are covered by the 1st Amendment protections of free speech. And today Progressives want this ruling reversed so the U.S. gov't led by Pres. Trump can resume censorship of political propaganda during election periods.