Corporations are People?

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

It's not true that corporations are ARTIFICIAL entities "created" by the state.

They existed first, BEFORE they incorporated, before deciding to be changed by the state from a noncorporate entity into a corporate entity. Like an individual or group can move from one location to another, or change its status, buy or sell property, enter into a contractual agreement, etc. -- an entity can change itself, or be changed, but it already existed before the change, so it was not "created" at the moment it changed. And it's not anymore "artificial" than other groups (NONcorporate groups).

This fact refutes at least half the arguments from the "corporations are not people" fanatics. When someone is arrested and incarcerated he becomes something much different, i.e., a prisoner. But the state did not CREATE that person or group which was arrested. And that could be a very significant change in the life of that individual or group which was arrested.

another example: When someone got drafted out of college into the U.S. Army, that was a very radical change in the life of that person. More radical than a change which the individual or group chooses voluntarily. But that draftee (or group of draftees) was not CREATED by the U.S. gov't. This change, INVOLUNTARILY imposed onto the subject, was a greater change than that of a group or individual choosing to incorporate. And the draftee (or group of draftees) DID NOT BECOME SOMETHING ARTIFICIAL, even though undergoing a deep radical change in his/their existence.

No one has refuted this point, though it has been repeated several times, and the "corporations are not people" crusaders continue to assume as a premise that corporations are CREATED by the state.

The examples that you use regarding people is interesting, as corporations can not be arrested and incarcerated, nor can they be drafted for military service. So you yourself are showing that they are not people.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Thom Hartmann dishonesty score:

As of 6/26, Thom Hartmann is 0 for 19, in the survey/test of his honesty in reporting the Citizens United case. Still batting average .000.

This means: He has mentioned this case now 19 times (since 6/10 when the survey/test began), and he always says the case was about granting to corporations the right to bribe politicians and about deciding that corporations are people. But he never mentions that the case was about whether the FEC should have power to ban/suppress the film Hillary: The Movie from being circulated during the election period. So 19 at bats, and zero hits = .000 batting average.

The FEC suppression of the Hillary film was the first time in history that the federal government ever censored/suppressed any political propaganda. Had the FEC not been overruled, this would have granted to the federal government unprecedented power to censor/suppress political speech in the form of films or books or other media.

This scoring and batting average of .000 is a measure of his dishonesty -- because it's dishonest to keep repeating that the Court gave to corporations the right to bribe politicians, in this case, but to never mention that the case was specifically about the federal government suppressing a political film, and that the Court overruled this FEC action in the Citizens United case.

This test/survey will suspend at this point (no test on June 27). And Hartmann is gone from the program for 2 weeks after that. So the test/survey resumes Monday July 14.

However, this test/survey just got more complicated, because of something different in the 6/24 program, so that the scoring system needs to be modified (more on this later).

 

[bilby]

Never mind whether corporations are people; According to the Court of Appeal of the State of California, bees are fish.

Seriously.

Whether corporations are people, or bees are fish, may be in dispute. But we can all agree that the law is an ass.

 

[ZiprHead]

Thom Hartmann dishonesty score:

As of 6/26, Thom Hartmann is 0 for 19, in the survey/test of his honesty in reporting the Citizens United case. Still batting average .000.

This means: He has mentioned this case now 19 times (since 6/10 when the survey/test began), and he always says the case was about granting to corporations the right to bribe politicians and about deciding that corporations are people. But he never mentions that the case was about whether the FEC should have power to ban/suppress the film Hillary: The Movie from being circulated during the election period. So 19 at bats, and zero hits = .000 batting average.

The FEC suppression of the Hillary film was the first time in history that the federal government ever censored/suppressed any political propaganda. Had the FEC not been overruled, this would have granted to the federal government unprecedented power to censor/suppress political speech in the form of films or books or other media.

This scoring and batting average of .000 is a measure of his dishonesty -- because it's dishonest to keep repeating that the Court gave to corporations the right to bribe politicians, in this case, but to never mention that the case was specifically about the federal government suppressing a political film, and that the Court overruled this FEC action in the Citizens United case.

This test/survey will suspend at this point (no test on June 27). And Hartmann is gone from the program for 2 weeks after that. So the test/survey resumes Monday July 14.

However, this test/survey just got more complicated, because of something different in the 6/24 program, so that the scoring system needs to be modified (more on this later).

Aaahhh. so naive. You think the important part of the Citizens United case is Hillary: The Movie.

 

[NoHolyCows]

Thom Hartmann dishonesty score:

As of 6/26, Thom Hartmann is 0 for 19, in the survey/test of his honesty in reporting the Citizens United case. Still batting average .000.

This means: He has mentioned this case now 19 times (since 6/10 when the survey/test began), and he always says the case was about granting to corporations the right to bribe politicians and about deciding that corporations are people. But he never mentions that the case was about whether the FEC should have power to ban/suppress the film Hillary: The Movie from being circulated during the election period. So 19 at bats, and zero hits = .000 batting average.

The FEC suppression of the Hillary film was the first time in history that the federal government ever censored/suppressed any political propaganda. Had the FEC not been overruled, this would have granted to the federal government unprecedented power to censor/suppress political speech in the form of films or books or other media.

This scoring and batting average of .000 is a measure of his dishonesty -- because it's dishonest to keep repeating that the Court gave to corporations the right to bribe politicians, in this case, but to never mention that the case was specifically about the federal government suppressing a political film, and that the Court overruled this FEC action in the Citizens United case.

This test/survey will suspend at this point (no test on June 27). And Hartmann is gone from the program for 2 weeks after that. So the test/survey resumes Monday July 14.

However, this test/survey just got more complicated, because of something different in the 6/24 program, so that the scoring system needs to be modified (more on this later).

You keep repeating “Hillary: The Movie” as if it’s a silver bullet, but you’re missing the point. The decision wasn’t just about that film—it unleashed unlimited corporate spending in elections, overturning decades of precedent that prevented concentrated wealth from drowning out voters’ voices. The fact that the FEC applied campaign finance law to corporate-funded electioneering isn’t “unprecedented censorship”; it was standard, legal regulation upheld many times before.

Your fixation on Hartmann’s wording is a smokescreen. Citizens United fundamentally changed election law to empower corporate treasuries as political speakers. That’s the legacy—not a single propaganda film. If you can’t admit that, you’re not debating honestly.

NHC

 

[Swammerdami]

The burden of proof is on those who would deprive anyone of their political speech rights.

(Mistaken rant)
(Mistaken rant)
. . .
(Mistaken rant)

The error in your "thinking" has been explained already. But let me try again.

First let's learn what the word I've reddened means:

an·y·one
/ˈenēˌwən/
pronoun

1. any person or people.​

"there wasn't anyone there"​

2. a person of importance or authority.​

"they are read by anyone who's anyone"​

I don't know how far down the rabbit-hole we need to go. Will you stipulate that "person" or "people" refers specifically to Homo sapiens? Your own claim is that speech rights apply to anyone, i.e. to H. sapiens. They do NOT apply to felids, canids, ostriches, robots, corporations or any THING that is not H. sapiens.

Now: You may argue that a corporation is composed of human stockholders, human employees and other human stakeholders. Where you show confusion is in NOT grasping that these HUMANS are entitled to free speech. They can spend THEIR money promoting the interests of their corporation if they so choose. They can write letters to the editor, argue on message-boards, have sex and do all sorts of stuff which HUMANS do. Capische?

Now a husband and wife may cooperate and, as a group of two humans, make a political donation or write a letter. A group of mariners, fishermen and boatmen working aboard vessels flagged in the United States or Canada have banded together to form the SIU and as a group of HUMANS, they can make political donations.

I picked SIU as an arbitrary example of a union -- my friend was a seafarer -- but Googling just now shows that its right to make donations was tested in Federal court!

United States v. Seafarers International U. of No. Amer., 343 F. Supp. 779 (E.D.N.Y. 1972)​

US District Court for the Eastern District of New York - 343 F. Supp. 779 (E.D.N.Y. 1972)
May 25, 1972

...

Conclusion

The defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. The indictment is dismissed as to all defendants and all defendants are discharged.
So ordered.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Everyone is entitled to 1st Amendment free speech
including all groups of any kind, big and small,
even corporations.


(continued from previous Wall of Text)

The controversy in Citizens United is about granting that power [power of free speech, 1st Amendment rights] to the corporation itself, which can spend unlimited money on political influence, even if many of the people inside it disagree. That’s not about protecting people’s speech — it’s about magnifying institutional power, and that’s why many see it as a distortion of First Amendment protections.

OK that's the whole paragraph, the pieces put together. In the first phrase the word "granting" is incorrect. ". . . Citizens United is about granting that power . . ." No, it's about not taking that power away from the corporation, or about restoring that power back to the corporation after the FEC denied free speech by suppressing the Hillary film. The group which incorporated already had that power even before it became an official corporation. Corporations were already-existing businesses (for-profit or not-for-profit) which had full free-speech rights under the 1st Amendment, though the campaign reform law of 2002 changed it and gave the FEC power to suppress those rights.

So Citizens United did not "grant" any new power of free speech to corporations.

. . . granting that power [power of free speech, 1st Amendment rights] to the corporation itself, which can spend unlimited money on political influence, even if . . .

There's nothing wrong about either of these -- "spend unlimited money" and "political influence" -- either of these is legitimate, and both of them together in combination are legitimate. Everyone -- every group or individual -- has the right to spend as much as they want on political influence. It's legitimate to try to influence others politically, and it's legitimate to spend all you want (no matter who or what you are) on trying to influence others politically. You can't name anything wrong with this.

If you don't like someone else's political influence, you're free to exercise your own free speech to promote a contrary influence, in a different direction. You can oppose someone else's political influence with your own political influence.

And INEQUALITY in one's ability to do this is a fact of life. The strong political party you support is vastly stronger than the small individual out there who disagrees with that political faction. The weak isolated poor person, or group, who rejects either Party has virtually no power, by comparison to the typical Democrat politician and his/her disciples. The power of that partisan political clique is a million-fold greater than the power of the single isolated individual or group who would like to oppose that partisan political clique. Inequality is irrelevant. Each individual or group chooses where they/it can find a voice and try to influence others, with whatever unequal means they have.

There are millions of inequalities, and unequal groups. Billions. You can whine that some rich people have unequal power compared to your political power faction, but that's just the particular inequality you experience. The truth is that you too have vastly greater political influence than some others who oppose your political clique and its agenda and special interests. Your unequal power over them, plus all the other inequalities, might be lamentable in some way, and maybe some change could happen, but abridging anyone's free-speech rights is never the solution, to make things more equal.

You need to find a way to make it more fair WITHOUT resorting to censorship, book- and film-banning, suppression of political propaganda.

. . . which can spend unlimited money on political influence, even if many of the people inside it disagree. That’s not . . .

The vast majority of groups make their decisions contrary to many/most people inside the group, who disagree. This is not about "corporations" but about ALL groups. And it's normal for those in power to disdain the majority membership, as standard practice. And, in some ways the leadership of a group often does have to go against many of its members, maybe even most. The group cannot get popular approval for all the decisions of its leadership -- it's impractical in many cases. So this does not tell us why corporations in particular must be denied free-speech rights.

That's not about protecting people’s speech — it’s about magnifying institutional power, and . . .

Yes, the power of this or that political party or faction is magnified. Yes, when free speech is protected and people exercise their free speech, it might lead to someone's power being magnified and someone else's being reduced. These go together -- people's free speech increasing and the power structure getting changed one way or the other. So, why does that require free speech to be curtailed? ANYONE's free speech? or their political propaganda to be suppressed? censored? banned?

Nothing here gives a reason for restricting anyone's free speech rights.

. . . about magnifying institutional power, and that’s why many see it as a distortion of First Amendment protections.

No, there's nothing about the 1st Amendment which conflicts with institutional power. That some institution became more powerful does not contradict the 1st Amendment. There's no distortion of the 1st Amendment just because some institution became more powerful. It's not wrong to gain more power through using the 1st Amendment. If they committed a crime, let's hear about it, prosecute them. And also there may be a need for new rules here or there, and enforcement of the rules. But not censorship! not suppression of free speech! not curtailment of our basic 1st Amendment rights. Not anyone's rights, not even of corporations, or the rich and powerful, no matter how much you hate them.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[NoHolyCows]

The controversy in Citizens United is about granting that power [power of free speech, 1st Amendment rights] to the corporation itself, which can spend unlimited money on political influence, even if many of the people inside it disagree. That’s not about protecting people’s speech — it’s about magnifying institutional power, and that’s why many see it as a distortion of First Amendment protections.

OK that's the whole paragraph, the pieces put together. In the first phrase the word "granting" is incorrect. ". . . Citizens United is about granting that power . . ." No, it's about not taking that power away from the corporation, or about restoring that power back to the corporation after the FEC denied free speech by suppressing the Hillary film. The group which incorporated already had that power even before it became an official corporation. Corporations were already-existing businesses (for-profit or not-for-profit) which had full free-speech rights under the 1st Amendment, though the campaign reform law of 2002 changed it and gave the FEC power to suppress those rights.

So Citizens United did not "grant" any new power of free speech to corporations.

. . . granting that power [power of free speech, 1st Amendment rights] to the corporation itself, which can spend unlimited money on political influence, even if . . .

There's nothing wrong about either of these -- "spend unlimited money" and "political influence" -- either of these is legitimate, and both of them together in combination are legitimate. Everyone -- every group or individual -- has the right to spend as much as they want on political influence. It's legitimate to try to influence others politically, and it's legitimate to spend all you want (no matter who or what you are) on trying to influence others politically. You can't name anything wrong with this.

If you don't like someone else's political influence, you're free to exercise your own free speech to promote a contrary influence, in a different direction. You can oppose someone else's political influence with your own political influence.

And INEQUALITY in one's ability to do this is a fact of life. The strong political party you support is vastly stronger than the small individual out there who disagrees with that political faction. The weak isolated poor person, or group, who rejects either Party has virtually no power, by comparison to the typical Democrat politician and his/her disciples. The power of that partisan political clique is a million-fold greater than the power of the single isolated individual or group who would like to oppose that partisan political clique. Inequality is irrelevant. Each individual or group chooses where they/it can find a voice and try to influence others, with whatever unequal means they have.

There are millions of inequalities, and unequal groups. Billions. You can whine that some rich people have unequal power compared to your political power faction, but that's just the particular inequality you experience. The truth is that you too have vastly greater political influence than some others who oppose your political clique and its agenda and special interests. Your unequal power over them, plus all the other inequalities, might be lamentable in some way, and maybe some change could happen, but abridging anyone's free-speech rights is never the solution, to make things more equal.

You need to find a way to make it more fair WITHOUT resorting to censorship, book- and film-banning, suppression of political propaganda.

. . . which can spend unlimited money on political influence, even if many of the people inside it disagree. That’s not . . .

The vast majority of groups make their decisions contrary to many/most people inside the group, who disagree. This is not about "corporations" but about ALL groups. And it's normal for those in power to disdain the majority membership, as standard practice. And, in some ways the leadership of a group often does have to go against many of its members, maybe even most. The group cannot get popular approval for all the decisions of its leadership -- it's impractical in many cases. So this does not tell us why corporations in particular must be denied free-speech rights.

That's not about protecting people’s speech — it’s about magnifying institutional power, and . . .

Yes, the power of this or that political party or faction is magnified. Yes, when free speech is protected and people exercise their free speech, it might lead to someone's power being magnified and someone else's being reduced. These go together -- people's free speech increasing and the power structure getting changed one way or the other. So, why does that require free speech to be curtailed? ANYONE's free speech? or their political propaganda to be suppressed? censored? banned?

Nothing here gives a reason for restricting anyone's free speech rights.

. . . about magnifying institutional power, and that’s why many see it as a distortion of First Amendment protections.

No, there's nothing about the 1st Amendment which conflicts with institutional power. That some institution became more powerful does not contradict the 1st Amendment. There's no distortion of the 1st Amendment just because some institution became more powerful. It's not wrong to gain more power through using the 1st Amendment. If they committed a crime, let's hear about it, prosecute them. And also there may be a need for new rules here or there, and enforcement of the rules. But not censorship! not suppression of free speech! not curtailment of our basic 1st Amendment rights. Not anyone's rights, not even of corporations, or the rich and powerful, no matter how much you hate them.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

You keep repeating the same fallacy: “Citizens United didn’t grant new power.” It absolutely did. For decades, laws upheld by the Court restricted corporate treasury spending in elections because corporations are state-created financial tools, not natural persons with inherent political rights. Citizens United overturned those laws, giving corporations direct electoral influence that individual members never voted on or consented to.

And your endless “Hillary: The Movie” diversion ignores reality. The decision wasn’t just about one film — it unleashed unlimited corporate electioneering spending. That’s the outcome you refuse to face.

Bottom line: The First Amendment protects individual speech. Citizens United turned it into a shield for institutional money power. That’s not free speech — it’s legalized dominance. Debate over.

NHC

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

. . . . But they're still people! So the slogan that they're "not people" doesn't make any sense.

This conflates two very different ideas. The people within a corporation are, of course, people — and they retain all their individual rights. But a corporation itself is not a person in the constitutional sense. It is . . .

Yes it is, for legal purposes, just like all other groups. Corporations AND noncorporations are all people.

You cannot arbitrarily separate corporations into a separate group category and say that ALL OTHER GROUPS are "people" except this one you selected out for singular treatment. You have no basis for treating this one kind of entity differently. This would mean that the ACLU and Planned Parenthood and other corporations are "not people," whereas the United Methodist Church and the Trilateral Commission ARE "people" --- No! You cannot arbitrarily divide groups/people up like this and brand some of them "people" and others "not people" --- where do you get this phony categorizing scheme? You have not stated what makes Planned Parenthood "not people" and the Trilateral Commission "people" --- until you tell us what really distinguishes the corporate from the noncorporate groups you cannot make these pronouncements which single out this one kind of group and make it different than all the others, taking away from it the 1st Amendment rights which ALL are entitled to --- all individuals and all groups.

Stop repeating what a "corporation" is that makes it different when you won't tell us what a "corporation" is and what it isn't, when what you're talking about -- which you label "corporation" -- has virtually nothing to do with 99% of real registered legal corporations, which are nothing like what you describe. Back up and tell us that by "corporations" you mean the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, and that you mean these are "not people" and that they have no 1st Amendment rights -- even though noncorporations like the Trilateral Commission and most religious cults and many churches are "people" with 1st Amendment rights because they are not corporations.

Nothing you say has any legitimacy as long as it rests on the premise that there can be no distinguishing what really is a "corporation" from what is not. Just admit that your word "corporation" has nothing to do with the legal term. Because legally, ACLU and Planned Parenthood are corporations, and 99.9% of corporations are nothing like you're describing and have no connection to financial power and privileges like you keep describing.

You have to back up and clean up your jargon, but you won't do it because it would spoil your slogan "Corporations are not people" -- and all you care about is preserving the vulgarity of your political dog-whistle slogan, which Leftists use for stampeding the mindless mob.

 

[NoHolyCows]

. . . . But they're still people! So the slogan that they're "not people" doesn't make any sense.

This conflates two very different ideas. The people within a corporation are, of course, people — and they retain all their individual rights. But a corporation itself is not a person in the constitutional sense. It is . . .

Yes it is, for legal purposes, just like all other groups. Corporations AND noncorporations are all people.

You cannot arbitrarily separate corporations into a separate group category and say that ALL OTHER GROUPS are "people" except this one you selected out for singular treatment. You have no basis for treating this one kind of entity differently. This would mean that the ACLU and Planned Parenthood and other corporations are "not people," whereas the United Methodist Church and the Trilateral Commission ARE "people" --- No! You cannot arbitrarily divide groups/people up like this and brand some of them "people" and others "not people" --- where do you get this phony categorizing scheme? You have not stated what makes Planned Parenthood "not people" and the Trilateral Commission "people" --- until you tell us what really distinguishes the corporate from the noncorporate groups you cannot make these pronouncements which single out this one kind of group and make it different than all the others, taking away from it the 1st Amendment rights which ALL are entitled to --- all individuals and all groups.

Stop repeating what a "corporation" is that makes it different when you won't tell us what a "corporation" is and what it isn't, when what you're talking about -- which you label "corporation" -- has virtually nothing to do with 99% of real registered legal corporations, which are nothing like what you describe. Back up and tell us that by "corporations" you mean the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, and that you mean these are "not people" and that they have no 1st Amendment rights -- even though noncorporations like the Trilateral Commission and most religious cults and many churches are "people" with 1st Amendment rights because they are not corporations.

Nothing you say has any legitimacy as long as it rests on the premise that there can be no distinguishing what really is a "corporation" from what is not. Just admit that your word "corporation" has nothing to do with the legal term. Because legally, ACLU and Planned Parenthood are corporations, and 99.9% of corporations are nothing like you're describing and have no connection to financial power and privileges like you keep describing.

You have to back up and clean up your jargon, but you won't do it because it would spoil your slogan "Corporations are not people" -- and all you care about is preserving the vulgarity of your political dog-whistle slogan, which Leftists use for stampeding the mindless mob.

You keep circling the same flawed point. Yes, corporations are treated as “persons” for limited legal purposes like contracts or lawsuits. But constitutional personhood — the rights meant to protect living human beings from government power — is not the same as corporate privileges granted by the state. That’s why corporations can be dissolved or restructured at will; human beings cannot.

When I say corporations are not people, it’s not a slogan — it’s a reality check: The ACLU and Planned Parenthood’s rights are about protecting individuals associating for expressive or charitable purposes. Corporate election spending isn’t about expression; it’s about institutional financial leverage in politics. That’s the distinction you keep dodging.

You can rant about semantics all day, but it doesn’t change this simple truth: Money is not speech. Corporations are not citizens. And the First Amendment was never designed to empower entities built to generate profit to dominate democratic decision-making.

End of story.

NHC

 

[ZiprHead]

You cannot arbitrarily separate corporations into a separate group category and say that ALL OTHER GROUPS are "people" except this one you selected out for singular treatment.

Why not???

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What was overturned by Citizens United?

This "summary" statement contains critical wording which shows that the law (policy) overturned by the Court in 2010 was a CENSORSHIP law, which would have the federal government directly violate the free speech rights of citizens, suppressing their right to publish political speech.

This document is from the Federal Election Commission, announcing its intention to engage in CENSORSHIP of political speech, citing the election reform act of 2002 -- "BCRA" -- which introduced the term "electioneering communications" as a certain kind of political speech which now is to be PROHIBITED.

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.federalregister.gov

(the key words are in bold type)

The Federal Election Commission promulgates new rules regarding electioneering communications, which are certain television and radio communications that refer to a clearly identified Federal candidate and that are publicly distributed to the relevant electorate within 60 days prior to a general election or within 30 days prior to a primary election for Federal office. The final rules implement a portion of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”) that adds to the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) new provisions regarding electioneering communications. BCRA defines “electioneering communications,” exempts certain communications from the definition, provides limited authorization to the Commission to promulgate additional exemptions, and requires public disclosure of specified information regarding who made the electioneering communication and its cost. Additionally, BCRA prohibits corporations and labor organizations from making electioneering communications, and the final rules also implement this prohibition. Further information is provided in the Supplementary Information that follows.

Everyone has free speech except "corporations and labor organizations" -- Really!? Why? Why was the law, and this agency, now going to impose a PROHIBITION of free speech onto these particular kinds of groups? because we're told that in all society these groups alone are "not people" even though all other groups are people, and so these particular groups are to be singled out for special prohibitions which are not imposed onto anyone or any group that is NOT a corporation or labor organization. How can anyone make sense out of this, other than to recognize that it discriminates against these groups and punishes them by abridging their 1st Amendment rights?

How can anyone fail to recognize that this flatly violates the 1st Amendment protection of free speech and free press? guaranteeing to everyone, every individual and every group, free speech rights?

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 a redress of grievances.

". . . no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"

What are the exceptions to this? Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc.? OK. But such speech, to be prohibited, must be speech which is CRIMINAL, directly threatening people's lives, promoting criminal destructive behavior. That's the only kind of exception there can be to this free speech freedom. Not theories about someone's political opinions having an influence on voters. Since when is it a crime, or a threat to public safety, for someone to express a political opinion which might influence voters? maybe even change the election outcome?

Are you committing a crime or threatening everyone's safety because you effectively expressed your opinion and caused several voters to change their minds? That's like saying you're allowed to speak freely, as long as you speak ineffectively and unsuccessfully. You're free to be unsuccessful in your speaking, but not free to succeed. As long as your speech is incompetent and ineffective, then it's OK -- you're free to say it. But you're not free to say anything successfully -- no, that's prohibited. Does that make any sense?

No previous federal election law ever said the gov't could PROHIBIT free speech. This began with the election reform of 2002. This then led to the first case in the U.S. of the federal government suppressing political speech, in violation of the 1st Amendment.

How could the Court rule other than it did in 2010? a political propaganda film was suppressed as a result of this law. What's not clear about this infringement on free speech? The FEC said the words: "BCRA prohibits corporations and labor organizations from making electioneering communications, and the final rules also implement this prohibition."

"prohibits" that political speech ("electioneering communications") from being placed into broadcast or Internet outlets, and the "rules" (FEC rules) "implement this prohibition." This is effectively an admission of guilt by the FEC, admitting that the law it's following is PROHIBITING free speech, and that the FEC in its rules will "implement this prohibition."

i.e., implement this censorship

this curtailment of free speech, this abridgment of 1st Amendment rights.


What could be more clear?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is the key point. Labor unions, cooperative community organizations, non-profits like the Girl Scouts -- these are all organizations of PEOPLE for the benefit of PEOPLE. Human society should be intended to serve the needs of PEOPLE.

Organizations exist to serve the needs of the organization above the needs of the people in the organization.

Unions are by no means immune to this. Two things to note:

1) Lopsided pay based on seniority. Too little to the people at the bottom, too much to the people at the top. If your industry has multiple unions it means you can't change employers without clobbering your income for the rest of your life.
1a) Look at what has happened with the auto industry--a two-tiered system where the newer people will never earn what the older people get. Why is such an agreement even legally tolerable??

2) Protecting jobs even when they don't need protection. No union member is hurt by companies going to more labor-efficient practices so long as it does not exceed the normal attrition rate. But fewer people = less pay for the people running it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If corporations were people they would be taxed on their revenues, not just their profits.

No they wouldn't. They would be taxed the same as other "people" -- the same as non-corporate businesses and independent contractors and entrepreneurs, who are all taxed on their profits, not on their revenues.

I'm a "people" and I'm taxed on my revenue.

What is other "people"? Are some "people" better or differant than other "people"? And if so, where do I find this allowable in the constitution?

You’re taxed on your income - deductions. No one is taxed based on gross revenue.

To clarify:

We are taxed on "gross"--but between the 0% bracket and the standard deduction the actual basic cost of living effectively is not taxed, making it a reasonable approximation of net.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is explicitly about allowing corporations to restricts rights of individuals, and nothing else. When someone complains about the rights of corporations being infringed, they generally mean they want corporations to be free of consequences of what they say (when it promotes white Christian nationalism) and to withhold services (when it promotes white Christian nationalism).

Free of consequences? Consumers most certainly can reject a company based on what the company says. Citizens United is about whether they can say it at all.

And I have a hard time with the notion that a group of people do not have a right possessed by all individuals of the group.

I do not like the political power companies wield, but I don't believe there's a viable way to prevent it. They'll just take the operation overseas. Besides, the real problem isn't the ads they pay for, it's the disinformation on social media. Are companies behind it? To some extent I think it's very likely, but the whole point is astroturfing, they are going to hide it whatever the law says. 50 years ago it would have helped (not that I think it's constitutional), now I think it's irrelevant.

 

[ZiprHead]

1a) Look at what has happened with the auto industry--a two-tiered system where the newer people will never earn what the older people get. Why is such an agreement even legally tolerable??

That was something that was demanded by the auto manufacturers. The UAW no longer agrees to that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

1) How do you control a company creating a proliferation of entities to get under the limit?

2) While I would like to see political speech curtailed I see no way that's compatible with the 1st and thus would need a constitutional amendment, not a law.

3) How do you define political speech? Pornography descriptions have no place in law.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

HARTMANN DISHONESTY SCORE


Thom Hartmann's bias about Citizens United -- KEEPING SCORE of his honesty
See previous posts: Sunday at 6:43 AM #129 & Tuesday at 2:47 PM #132 -- (Hartmann's problem telling the truth that this case was about FEC censorship, i.e., 2008 suppressing the Hillary film promoted by Citizens United Inc.)



The Thom Hartmann program on 6/24 had something different: a book review on the Citizens United case -- Unequal Protection. This had the honesty to present the "Corporations are People" side of the argument, though still not acknowledging anything about the FEC ban of the film Hillary: The Movie.

The 6/24 program quoted from the majority decision, especially from Justice Kennedy, giving some good points. Especially that it's not legitimate to single out "corporations" for special treatment, imposing free speech limits onto these only (or on only these and labor organizations). The term "corporation" does not mean only the megacorporations, but also the nonprofits and the millions of for-profit corporations which are small and don't have vast financial power. So the term "corporations" is deliberately deceptive, but easy to use for propaganda dog-whistle attraction of the mindless masses in need of a scapegoat of some kind and slogan "Corporations are not people."

So the 6/24 program has to go into a new category. This will be a 4-0-1 score for that one day.

meaning of 4-0-1: So the 4 means there were 4 mentions of the Citizens United case for that day. The 0 means again that there was no mention of the suppression of the film Hillary: The Movie, and the 1 means that an argument in favor of the Court's decision was presented, and this was a legitimate argument, showing good reason for the Court's ruling. But the 4-0-1 still means they're avoiding the fact that the case was about whether the FEC should have censorship power to ban political propaganda, like the Hillary film.

So the scores for each day are now revised to take account of cases (only one so far) where mention is made that the decision was about 1st Amendment protection of free speech against censorship. This is an improvement, showing some balance, but it's still dishonest to say the case was about giving corporations the right to BRIBE legislators and yet say nothing about the censorship by the FEC which suppressed showing the Hillary film. So he scores a point for the better balance, but also scores another dishonesty point for not mentioning the FEC's censorship of the film. So, the latest score:

SCORE
June 10 - July 14
10: 4-0-0
11: 1-0-0
12: 0-0-0
13: omitted from the survey
16: 3-0-0
17: omitted from the survey
18: 2-0-0
19: 2-0-0
20: 0-0-0
23: 0-0-0
24: 4-0-1
25: 1-0-0
26: 2-0-0

July
14: 1-0-0
___________
20-0-1 total to date, batting average still .000
20 times at bat, 0 hits, one base-on-balls

The above summary includes several recorded messages by Hartmann, about 10-20 seconds long. One is about his term "the morbidly rich" in which he refers to the Citizens United case without mentioning it by name. But the reference to this case is clear -- he said 5 justices ruled that corporations have the right to bribe politicians. So each time this message is played it's one more mention in the above count/score, increasing the left number one higher. Another recorded message says: "Is WalMart a person? No, the Republicans on the Supreme Court got that one wrong too." This is a clear reference to Citizens United. This message says the case was about whether Walmart is a person, and Hartmann's answer is no and the Court was wrong. This reference too depicts the case as being not about whether a film should be banned, but whether corporations are people. These references are dishonest, saying only the anti-corporation slogan while refusing to recognize that the case was about whether the gov't may restrict a film from being shown. These recorded messages are short, but each counts as long as it makes unmistakable reference to the Citizens United case, and says it's about bribing politicians or whether a corporation is "people" etc. "Is WalMart a person? etc." was the only mention of CU on 6/25.

The scorekeeping and survey/test was resumed today July 14. However, July 15 will be excluded from the survey (I miss the program tomorrow), so it resumes Wednesday July 16.

 

[Swammerdami]

Nitpick: It is good to write CAREFULLY and CLEARLY and to place remarks in CONTEXT. As just one example, someone recently wrote "capital gains tax rates should be eliminated" with the intended meaning that those tax rates should be the SAME as ordinary income tax rates. This was CONFUSING, especially since the context was NOMINAL gains canceled by inflation, and the idea of taxing those "gains" at Zero.

We ALL make this sort of mistake -- Swammerdami included -- but we should all exercise care. Many disputes here arise NOT due to any fundamental disagreement, but due to the use of IMPRECISE language.

Here is a more recent example:

This is the key point. Labor unions, cooperative community organizations, non-profits like the Girl Scouts -- these are all organizations of PEOPLE for the benefit of PEOPLE. Human society should be intended to serve the needs of PEOPLE.

Organizations exist to serve the needs of the organization above the needs of the people in the organization.

Unions are by no means immune to this. Two things to note:
1) Lopsided pay based on seniority....
2) Protecting jobs even when they don't need protection....

What Mr. Pechtel writes is not completely wrong, but it IS annoying because it is presented as though it were a refutation of what I wrote. Had I written "Corporations are teh evil; unions are teh good" the rebuttal would be appropriate. But I didn't write that.

What I wrote was that Unions are "organizations of PEOPLE for the benefit of PEOPLE." And indeed most Unions have officers and rules chosen in free elections: One Person One Vote. (The faults Mr. Pechtel identifies are caused by PEOPLE voting in accordance with their own perceived self-interest or greed.)

Corporations' elections are One SHARE One Vote. Can we agree that this is DIFFERENT from One Person One Vote? Obviously we certainly have strong recent evidence that popular elections are NOT any panacea; and we can find examples where "Corporations are teh good; and Unions are teh evil."

But let's stop misinterpreting others' posts, okay?

 

[ZiprHead]

Aawww, Lumpy still thinks the movie was the important part of Citizens United. How quaint.