Judge Napolitano and Ron Paul on the Supreme Court Ruling on Free Speech Rights for Corporations
Submitted by ClassicalLiberal on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 10:18
Judge Napolitano: "The 20-year-old ruling had forbidden any political spending by groups such as corporations, labor unions, and advocacy organizations (like the NRA and Planned Parenthood, for example). Ruling that all persons, individually and in groups, have the same unfettered free speech rights, the court blasted Congress for suppression of that speech. In effect, the court asked, “What part of ‘Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech’ does Congress not understand?” Thus, all groups of two or more persons are free to spend their own money on any political campaigns and to mention the names of the candidates in their materials."
The rest of The Judge's article:
Ron Paul: "One side will argue, 'Well corporations don't have rights, only individuals have rights!' Well, individuals own the corporations."
The rest of Dr. Paul's words on this in Dr. Joseph Mercola's interview (part 3) with Dr. Paul:
http://famguardian.org/Subjec
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Sovereignty/OfficeOf...
Personally, I think we Paulers are taking this the wrong way;
If a "corporation" is a "Person", and a "Person" is the subject of all of these laws, (licensing, tax, pot, etc) then the theory that many of us have been trying to inform you of, that "Human Beings" and "Persons" are two different things, begins to be more acceptable.
All "Person" means, in law, is 'someone, or something, that has decided to contract with the government, and to be bound by regulation'.
This is why the definition of "Person" NEVER lists "human" or "human being" in its definition, at best it says "natural person". A human only becomes a 'person' upon his consent. Anyone who knows law, or english for that matter, knows that a definition which uses its own word, must resort to the other meanings in that definition.
for example, look at this definition [it is a fake definition to make a point]:
“Domicile” includes Personal domiciles, business storefronts, U.S. Corporate offices, company headquarters, business addresses when used in the function of an active business.
notice how "Domicile" doesnt include 'house' or 'home', but instead includes 'personal domiciles'.
Because "domicile" is the word being defined, we have to look at the other definitions to determine what a "personal domicile" is. The other definitions refer to business activity, hence, a personal domicile would most likely mean a 'personal business'
Then, imagine if there was a section of code that read like this: [again fake to make point]
Any person who transfers stolen property from any domicile, to any other home, for the purpose of evading conviction, is guilty of a Felony under this code.
here you see that the word "home" was used, implying that "home" and "domicle" are NOT the same things!
follow???
well, here is a REAL sample of this being done!!!
California Penal Code:
For purposes of this chapter, "person" means a natural
person, living or deceased, firm, association, organization,
partnership, business trust, company, corporation, limited liability
company, or public entity, or any other legal entity.
THEN, they use HUMAN...WHICH IS NEVER DEFINED!!!
California Penal Code Section 187
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. (b) This section shall not apply to any person...
California Penal Code Section 203
Every person who unlawfully and maliciously deprives a human being of a member of his body, or disables, disfigures, or renders it useless, or cuts...
so to recap, "Person" NEVER includes "human being" in the definition, yet the codes always use human whenever referring to something that only a flesh and blood human could do, ie. "...horsemeat for human consumption..." "bicycle...powered by human power..." "...human feelings..."
1) it would be easy for the code writers to put 'human' into the definition, IF THEY WERE allowed.
2) person isnt the same as human
". . .in common usage, the term "person" does not include the Sovereign, statutes employing the word person are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign."
[Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U. S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600, 604 (1941)]
are you a corporate fiction?
14th amendment slaves that have to get permission from the government for everything
ward
person
resident
citizen
subject
serf
slaves in total bondage with no opportunity to own property, it is all an illusion
when are our heros going to tackle the real roots of our demise? or our we indefinably lost in the land of babble where there are no set definitions of any word?
http://goldismoney.info/forums/archive/index.php/t-19421.html
Eternal vigilance!
I Paid $ to Get This Result - I Won and so did You
Per the below from DownsizeDC.org:
You just won a big victory in the Supreme Court, but the media would have you believe otherwise. This message will explain . . .
* What you just won in the Citizens United case
* How and why the media is lying to you about it
* And what remains to be done to restore more of your Constitutional rights
Here's the basic situation . . .
Governments spend nearly half of the money you earn. This means that politicians have more influence over your life than anyone else. But how much influence do you have over the politicians?
You have the power to fire any employee or company that doesn't provide you with a good product or service at a price you're willing to pay. But you have almost no power to fire and replace your most important employees -- members of Congress.
Why is that?
The answer is disturbing. Incumbent politicians have erected campaign finance restrictions designed to protect themselves, silence taxpayers, and cripple challengers. The politicians and the media tell us these laws are needed to prevent corruption, but does government seem less corrupt to you? Here's the truth . . .
If you're an incumbent, and it's virtually illegal for people to raise enough money to unseat you, then you're free to do whatever you want. THIS is a recipe for corruption. THIS, and NOT campaign contributions, is one of the main reasons WHY we have such a Big, Wasteful, Corrupt government.
Many things must be done to achieve honest, Constitutional government, but among the most important is the need to restore your . . .
* Freedom of speech
* Freedom of the press
* And freedom of association
Doing this will allow you to associate with others to raise and spend the money required to FIRE incumbent politicians. At present, the campaign finance laws prohibit you from doing this. Ask yourself this question . . .
Can you afford, all by yourself, to run for office to unseat an incumbent officeholder?
The answer is clearly no. This means that you must exercise your freedom of association to join with others to raise the required funds. But first you will have to spend large sums of money to persuade people to participate. This is like starting a business, and that requires capital!
Too bad. This kind of capital has to be raised in chunks of ten and a hundred thousand dollars, but the campaign finance laws limit you to contributions of $2,100. That's why its mostly the rich and well-connected who win election to public office. Meanwhile . . .
The established corporate news media can do something you cannot. They can raise and spend unlimited amounts to communicate about politicians, campaigns, and issues. The media constantly tells you what your choices are, and they never include, for instance, people like Ron Paul.
_____________
Read more here about the Press trying to maintain their monopoly on freedom of the press and being the only ones with the ability to promote and cover candidates without restriction:
http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/campaign-finance-another-vict...
IMissLiberty
We have won the right....
For the corporations to buy up all the airtime making it more expensive and harder to get slots(supply and demand).
Now it will be even harder for Ron Paul people to afford and find air slots on radio, television, newspapers and magazines.
Yay! We win! What a great day for the Constitution...
:|
You think too small.
I was VERY hindered last election cycle in helping Ron out in my state, much less nationally.
I had an individual cap, you see....
Now I can throw an LLC together and get some likemided friends together to do what needs done.
This LEVELS the playing field. Before this ruling, the only corporations that could spend megamillions were the same ones who OWN THE POLITICIANS. You know, the ones that could get away with it.
Is there any part of that you do not understand? Or are you hindered in your thinking by assuming that any ~corporation~ is a bad thing?
You are siding with Obama and the liberals on this... it's kinda funny to watch.
do you honestly think....
you could put an LLC together that could compete with large corporations? What exactly is this LLC going to do(provide a service or product?)to bring in profits? People will still only be able to contribute there maximum per individual...or are you thinking the contributions could be limitless because it would be concidered coming from the treasury of the LLC ... so it becomes sort of a "laundered" personal contribution? Seems like we would have to get into the fine print to know exacly what is legal under the ruling. I don't follow you on your idea.
I am for....
I am for no spending/donation limits whatsoever for individual live flesh-and-blood people (no govt involvement allowed)
I am against having to sign a special contract with the govt (corporation) in order to exercise enhanced free-speech. (you seem to be for this o_O)
A "level playing field" is where individuals are restricted but persons who sign a contract with the government get special enhanced privileges? (i'm speechless O_o)
I guess I am "hindered in my thinking" by assuming all corporations are bad. I am against having to sign a special agreement with the government to gain exemptions from liabilities, laws, regulation and taxes that ordinary flesh-and-blood humans don't have access too. (call me crazy)
Actually, I think corporations are useful in certain limited circumstances, such as when building and operating a nuclear power plant or if the individual States want to kickstart manufacturing, construction or providing services of goods and services that are not readily available due to lack of private sector investment.
In these cases there needs to be time limits on contracts that can then be bid out to other vendors if needed if their performance or costs are not satisfactory. These types of corporations should be rare. This is the EXACT type of system the Founding Fathers intended and precisely what existed prior to the 1870's and the 14th Amendment.
:)
What's wrong with a corporation
trying to get government to lessen the regulatory or tax burden on themselves?
Haha...
Is that a serious question? You are libertarian right? Or libertarian-leaning?
o_O
I'm a full blown libertarian.
What libertarian wouldn't be against lower taxes and less regulations?
What libertarian wouldn't try to keep government from taking his money and from regulating him?
Are you sure you know what libertarianism is? It's belief in liberty. This means less government.
Or are you saying you're not a libertarian? We already know that you're not libertarian on how one gets their funding to exercise free speech.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Do you favor also banning
Fox News and MSNBS from advocating for candidates? These are run by corporations too. Do you want a total shutdown of political advocacy by all corporations including newspapers, televisions stations, websites, books, and DVD's?
And what do you mean corporations will buy up all the airtime making it more expensive and harder to get slots? Who would be getting the slots anyway? You need big money to buy airtime that's in demand. If corporations are not funding political ads then they are funding consumer product ads.
No...
No, because they are the press/media. I personally find no difficulty in delineating between those who make news and opinion available and those who makes widgets, tanks and build things or provide cleaning services. I don't think the press/media should be able to commit fraud and portray their opinion as the opinion of a third party(this is currently illegal).
I'm also for being nice to babies and puppies and kittens despite the fact that I disagree with government granted contracts that give special and extra rights to certain citizens (as long as they behave when the government tells them, they get to keep their exemptions from liabilities, taxes, laws and regulations. And they get freer access to loans and suppliers for obeying the govt also.)
You said:
"And what do you mean corporations will buy up all the airtime making it more expensive and harder to get slots?"
It's simple supply and demand. Corporations can now spend unlimited amounts on political advertising. Whereas before they were restricted. When people start spending more money for a limited resource the price goes up. Economics 101 :)
Ah.
That's right.. you ARE the person who still believes that there is a free press in the United States.
So my options now are... go with what Napolitano and RP say... or debate an anonymous chatname who has google but no real grip on reality.
I'ma leave this to you... I'm done.
:)
Umm...
I don't believe our media is free. You must have me confused with someone else. I believe the press/media in our country is tightly controlled by half a dozen corporations who are in bed with the Govt. Up to the 1980's a certain percentage of all media outlets had to be locally owned (within a state). I like that idea.
You said:
"So my options now are... go with what Napolitano and RP say... or debate an anonymous chatname who has google but no real grip on reality."
I respect any methods you choose to filter what you believe and don't believe. And I don't take it personally. Hopefully, we can discuss something else sometime.
:P
Rand Paul indicates that he approves of
this Supreme Court decision in the interview posted on this site with both him and his father. http://dailypaul.com/node/123842
Talked about how he likes that it gets rid of McCain/Feingold regulation.
Equality
This is an issue of equality between rights that has been perverted. The Constitution was drafted by men who themselves did not adhear to all of the idelology it contained, but they wrote it anyway. Perhaps they were relying on the virtues of justice to interpret these issues as they infringed upon the rights of others. I believe in the freedom of speech for all citizens and groups alike. However the advandage of your message should be consistant only with its content. To use this right in defense of oligarchic witchcraft shows the wisdom of judges has not ripened with age.
Although, if a man makes his fortune within a rule of law, applied equally, He may cast his money about anyway he sees fit. The reality is that these organizations have cheated their way into a position of overbearace, slowly, a few souls at a time. The purchasing of nation's leaders is certainly nothing new to America, But now it is condoned under law. This defines tyranny at its purest.
I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.
John Locke
Turn about
If the offer still stands, my adaptation to the first amendment "law" is still all about profit, and who's got it. How about, the entire board of every central bank to be interviewed: by Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, and a New York fireman, who lost a close bother in the attack. Will shoot it from all angles (One can never be to careful) and televise during the pre-game show for the Superbowl. My god, a ratings frenzy!
Free speech is no mere law, it is a human right. Laws can be broken, stolen, and choatically subjective. A right is not given by man, Therefore, cannot be governed by man. Reflect on the villiany of 5 supreme court justicies permitted to shatter the wisdom of our countries wisest men, and reassemble it to enslave the voice of their nation.Please help to bring our troops home, we desparatly need the heart of our nation.
I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.
John Locke
Sorry I tried to erase the
Sorry I tried to erase the second one.
Many gov'ts are now
Many gov'ts are now corporations. Does that mean a Government can financially support a running candidate?
Even after reading through all the comments...
this is still a very complex matter to get my head around.....
Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.”
– Patrick Henry, speech to the Virginia Convention
I agree with you. It seems
I agree with you. It seems really complicated. I'd like to hear two lawyers debate the issue.
Ventura 2012
Order of freedom matters
The order in which you dismantle government intervention matters.
For example, people who want to open the borders before the welfare state is dismantled are clearly mendacious. If you dismantle the welfare state then we can start talking about whether open borders are a good idea.
This is like that:
Once the Feds government started handing out "broadcast licenses" they threw the entire idea of free speech out the window and all the regulations on campaign spending are attempting to make up for that error. You can't hand out licenses to a select few and then say "OK, well first lets just let these few do whatever they want to the body politic with their government supported monopoly!"
Land is a natural right.
Wrong argument Ron
McCain-Feingold isn't the answer- neither is the Supreme Court decision. They're BOTH wrong- they're arguing the wrong point.
Ron Paul said:
if you had a lot of people in Washington with high character...
Well good grief! Duh- ya, if Christ ruled the world, everything would be just ducky. What kind of naive idealogue is this guy? I agree with his idealistic argument, but the pragmatic argument is sheer lunacy! Ron's bottom-line is winner-take-all. The richest man wins.
Corporations are not individuals and as such have no rights. They're a legal fiction. A collective, lead by a small army of interested parties. Corporations represent all of our greatest fears of collectivist-corporatism.
Welcome to the United States of Raytheon. Just slide in 2-3 billion dollars in cost over-runs and save it up for the next election and then purchase the war candidate of your choice.
You've got this one wrong Ron Paul. You may be 74 and playing to the cheap seats, but my grandchildren will have to pay for this shit. Loose the idealism and wake up to the world we're ACTUALLY LIVING IN.
Unlimited campaign spending for multi-national corporations? Wake-up and use your common sense folks. Your gut knows this is wrong.
I tend to agree with you....
Listen folks...a disagreement is good for the DP...it doesn't mean we are not on the same team. The Constitution is not perfect and interpreting it is not either. None of us here at DP want to water down or misinterpret the Constitution... This is good debate.
You anti-corporationists all make the same mistake.
Corporations are not a "legal fiction." This is a myth.
In a society where government was laissez-faire, corporations would still exist. They simply would not be required to obtain a charter/permission from government to exist. Government does not create corporations.
Government didn't create McDonalds. McDonalds is not legal fiction. It's very real. It exists. It would have existed as a corporation without having to obtain a charter.
If a person has a right to free speech, he ought not to lose his right to free speech just because he works at McDonalds and the company gives him some money to make a TV commercial or publish a book.
Not an anti-corporationist at all-
I happen to own the controlling interest in a corporation. But, that fact does not give my corporate entity the right to use the collective assets of the corporation to support any political candidate (in a self-serving way).
I, as a flesh and blood Individual, have rights which I exercise as an Individual. The other members of my corporation are also Individuals who regularly exercise their Individual rights. Our collective (corporation) however does NOT have the rights of a physical human. It can't. It is a non-human entity. My corporation (nor anyone else's) has anymore rights than does the title to my house or my car. They're simple legal arrangements- they're not people.
I would contend that the owners of a corporation, or members of a union or any other collective entity, already possess rights as Individuals. Why then when banding together as a group, should they receive (essentially) a second set of rights? The argument is preposterous and I am frankly disappointed in Ron Paul's stand. I'm with him 99% of the time- but not on this one.
And another thing: Even if one accepts the ridiculous premise that a corporation has rights, why does a corporation have better rights than the (physical) individual? As an individual, I can only contribute (directly) $2300 to a campaign. But as a corporation, I could contribute $23 Million. or $23 Billion. WTF?
You think we've got an unholy statist-corporatism now- just wait cause you ain't seen nothin' yet. Our government is now OFFICIALLY up for auction.
Here here...
Ditto
:p
Chief Justice John Marshall....
Chief Justice John Marshall, the guy called the Father of Constitutional Law and Father of the Supreme Court. The guy who knew all the Founding Fathers and is himself a Founding Father. The guy who worked for decades with James Madison, the Father of the Bill Rights (including the 1st). The guy who was Chief Justice during James Madison's presidency (The Father of the Bill of Rights) and also under 6 of the 7 very first presidents. This is his humble opinion:
John Marshall said of corporations in Dartmouth College v. Woodward(1819), "A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it....But this being DOES NOT SHARE IN THE CIVIL GOVERNMENT OF THIS COUNTRY, unless that be the purpose for which it was created. Its immortality no more confers on it political power, or a political character....The RIGHT TO CHANGE THEM is not founded on their being incorporated but on their being the INSTRUMENTS OF GOVERNMENT, CREATED FOR ITS PURPOSES."
SUMMARY:
I kind of trust this "John Marshall" guy on this issue. He was there. He was a Founding Father and knew all of the Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers thought he was a swell guy who knew just a little bit about the Constitution.
:P
"The power to tax is the power to destroy." - Chief Justice John Marshall - The Great Chief Justice, Father of Constitutional Law, Father of the Supreme Court and Founding Father
Um...
The result of Dartmouth College v Woodward was that Corporations, which before were considered public and therefore subject to state control, became private entities protected by the Constitution.
It was an argument on the Contracts Clause.
Dunno if you missed that part.
Thought I'd point it out.
:)
BTW... He and Jefferson HATED each other.. they were the polar opposite on about every issue.
The result....
The immediate result, and scope of the ruling, was that New Hampshire state legislature had to honor the contract Dartmouth made with the king of England as long as Dartmouth was providing a beneficial public good that was within the objects of its creation (purposes for which it was created in the charter).
Marshall also said in the same ruling that if Dartmouth was deviating from its "objects of creation", or its activities were not deemed beneficial then the legislature had a right to abolish it.
The ruling did nothing to change the nature of the contract or change the status or nature of Dartmouth. This is explicitly stated in the opinion. It merely enforced an obligation to honor the contract. Obligations of contract are protected/enforced in the Constitution.
With respect to LONG-TERM "results", Marshall's ruling was used/abused 70 years later to confer Bill of Rights protections on corporations and remove the States previous absolute control over corporations using the emancipation of slaves (14th Amendment). Very very un-Constitutional.
It is clear from the history of corporations prior to the Civil War, the writings of the Founders and Supreme Court precedence that the Founders intended corporations to be highly-regulated tools of government for government's purposes. Not a general way of conducting public commerce.
Yes, Jefferson and Marshall, who were cousins, didn't get along very well. But then again, Marshall was a Federalist, and Federalists were of the "Big Business" ilk who wanted to create an aristocracy of wealthy business owners that controlled everything. Which makes it even more surprising that Marshall, as a Federalist, harshly defined corporations as instruments of government having only properties as conferred to them by their creation by state legislatures (charter), not having any political power and acknowledging the inherent right of legislatures to amend and change corporations for the purposed of the government as long as it did not conflict with the obligation to contract or if the corporation began to engage in activities outside of purposes specified in the charter.
One of the things Marshall is most praised for is strictly interpreting the Constitution and setting aside his own political philosophies and theories.
Also:
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Thomas Jefferson, 1812
Im pretty sure Jefferson wasn't against Marshall's opinion on this topic. Jefferson wanted to CRUSH the corporations...
:)
Well..
At least you took the time to figure out that Marshall's ruling was the guiding factor of later rulings to allow people who owned corporations to use thier capital how they wanted to.
Still not sure why you think that's a bad thing...
You were the same one who I was poking fun at the other day for swearing up and down that we still have a free press, right?
Hmm...
Marshall made these points in Dartmouth College v. Woodward:
How is that in any way a "guiding factor" to "allow people who owned corporations to use thier capital how they wanted to."? Please explain.
Marshall said one of the primary reasons for NOT revoking the Dartmouth charter was that Dartmouth was still using their property "to the object of its creation". "Objects of creation" are the activities and purposes of the corporation outlined in the charter. Corporations could be dissolved for doing ANY activity outside of their "objects of creation". Marshall recognized this fact in his opinion. Remember, the whole case was about obligations to contract which is in the Constitution.
James Madison, the guy who wrote the Bill of Rights, didn't believe corporations should be able to hold any land in perpetuity unless it was actively being used for the purposes of its charter.
Thomas Jefferson, Ron Paul's hero, wanted to "crush" corporations.
The evidence is against your stance and claims.
It;s about groups of people
The McCain-Feingold prevents any group of people from getting together and advocating for a candidate, or against a candidate. That includes 'Corporations' like Wal-Mart, Nabisco, and Labor Unions, but also 'Corporations' like the NRA, The Sierra Club, The Campaign for Liberty and any group of like minded people that want to pool their money for a common cause.
Sorry people, you can't say that Campaign for Liberty or Gun Owners of America is allowed free speech but IBM is not. Do you really want the government deciding which groups have freedoms and which ones don't? I agree with the Good Doctor.
The fact that this got passed (by Congress, signed by Bush, and then OK'ed by the Supreme Court) shows that our checks and balances are terribly broken. They obviously restricted ability to 'assemble' and 'free speech'. If I remember right, the Supreme Court in the initial challenge said that the law only restricted financing speech, which is OK, it didn't restrict the speech itself, which is not OK. Give me a break.
I hope this ruling kills McCain-Feingold (but I fear it won't). "Campaign Finance Reform" was really just a way for the 2 parties in power to guarantee that they stayed in power. It should have been called the "Incumbent Job Security Act".
The fact is, there is no such thing as freedom of speech
There are only property rights. You own your body which means you can use your mouth and hold signs, so long as you do it on your own property or consensually on another's. You can also spend your money freely such as on advertising. Likewise, the owners of a company or directors of a corporation have control of their own money and can spend it however they choose.
This issue of "freedom of speech" is confusing to a lot of libertarians/Constitutionalists. That is why I recommend reading the Anarchist position on rights. Read For A New Liberty by Murray Rothbard available at mises.org.
http://dailyanarchist.com
~sigh~
You do realize that we are not living in an anarchial society, I hope... so while the anarchist's viewpoint on free speech is nice from an intellectual viewpoint, it matters as much as the existentialist's viewpoint on free speech.
We are in the United States of America, not Narnia.
Let's focus on the OP.
:)
LOL. By the way, have you
LOL.
By the way, have you noticed that the anarchists at LRC/Mises Institute are obsessed with Lord of the Rings and Narnia?
Ventura 2012
Its a classic chicken or the
Its a classic chicken or the egg style dilemma.
Given the current looting system, giving corporations more power is a big mistake.
However, opening them up to more regulations is hardly a step in the right diretion towards the ultimate solution, limited government.
Ventura 2012
I'm with ya....
I have been struggling with this issue in my head for days....because of the reasons you just stated... And, I think there is an interpretation dilemma of the 1st amendment as well...there are educated people here AND on the supreme court (through history) that interpret freedom of speech and how it relates to campaign funding & corporations differently ... but I do see both sides of the argument -
Ironically, corporations are
Ironically, corporations are privileged entities, and ARE subject to regulation by congress...
This is why ceo's of corporations are required to pay an income tax see:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_0...
(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.
Where in the Constitution does it say
that Congress may regulate corporations?
I hope your belief is not that government creates corporations. A corporation is just a joint-stock company. If government grants some type of privilege upon those who buy stock, such as limited liability, then still doesn't make the corporation government created.
Historically State Charters
Historically State Charters established corporations.
"To get a charter, a corporation: Had to have a public purpose, from building canals to providing education (Harvard University, for example, was the first U.S. corporation). If it failed to perform its public purpose, the corporation was dissolved.
Was limited in what business it could pursue, was not allowed to buy other corporations, and could amass only a certain level of capital. Faced term limits, with its charter usually expiring after 15 or 20 years, requiring it to seek renewal."
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/greenrights/6235.html
corporation -
corporation (plural corporations)
1. A group of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.
CORPORATION, n. A body politic or corporate, formed and authorized by law to act as a single person
Corporation
A legal entity, created under the authority of a statute, which permits a group of people, as shareholders, to apply to the government for an independent organization to be created, which then pursues set objectives
Corporation:
A group of people authorized by law to act as an individual; an artificial being, created by the State through a charter to engage in a particular kind of business.
For the 1st time I disagree with Dr. Paul
Free speech is for those who can speak. Corporations do not have a mouth, and thus do not have free speech. Even the ancient Romans, who called people who could not speak latin "barbarians", meaning they could not be understood because they were not speaking a common language, and therefore could not be given the same laws because they could not defend themselves in court. Same goes for animal rights. I have still to meet an animal that can defend itself in English in court, so we have separate laws. So what happens with corporations? If I work for a corporation that supports Obama, yet I support Paul, do I get on a black list at work? This is not a wise path to go down. Laws should always enforce and protect the lowest denominator, the individual. Giving corporations the right to free speech is a misnomer and will lead to corporatism and more group think holding sway over politics and everyday life at work. 1,000 individuals who support a candidate is more accurate and appropriate freedom than Corporation X, consisting of those 1,000 people, supporting a candidate.
I, on the other hand, think
I, on the other hand, think he's dead on. But perhaps his choice of focus made it less clear than it could have been.
Corporations are just a legal framework for a group of people to work together on something. The campaign finance law provisions that were struck had been worded using "corporation" to make people think they were about keeping enormous commercial enterprises from influencing elections. What they ACTUALLY were about was suppressing grass roots groups. Groups like the ones that had just taken out Mike Roos (of the California "Roberti-Roos assault weapons ban"), and Tom Foley (then Speaker of the House). Groups like Campaign for Liberty.
If you're rich you could spend as much of your own money as you want supporting or opposing candidates. But get together with others to pool your efforts and you were muzzled. Thus McCain-Feingold dumped herbicide on the grass roots movements that were springing up while giving people like George Soros free rein.
"Campaign finance laws" are all about politicians using government force to suppress their opposition and giving the status-quo power structure increased stability against from outside - including especially from the general population. This decision puts a stake in the heart of one of the worst in history. If that means a few big commercial corporations also get to tell the public who they support or oppose, that's fine with me.
Note that the decision did NOT strike the laws against FOREIGN corporations campaigning. Nor did it strike those against corporations giving unlimited direct donations (read: bribes) to the candidates' campaigns. Nor those requiring them to IDENTIFY themselves as sponsors of the ads. It just blocked the government from arbitrarily censoring political speech by people who are organized into groups during the critical period just before an election.
If I work for a corporation that supports Obama, yet I support Paul, do I get on a black list at work?
This decision didn't address that issue at all. If the corporation('s executive suite) supports Obama it can put you on a clandestine black list (and give you grounds for a suit if you can catch them at it), before or after this decision. All this means is that you can SEE what the corporate bias is when they take out adds. (Maybe that way you'll be able to find out what you're getting into the next time you change jobs. B-) Like I might have done before taking work with a company doing pro-bono support for HCI's website - or another that sponsored and hosted the site for the International Association of Chiefs of Police - an anti-gun lobbying group.)
= = = =
"Wunnerful, Wunnerful! Turn off the bubble machine!"
-Lawrence Welk (as satirized by Stan Freeberg.)
I think this ruling simply made it easier
for all of us to see what agendas corporations support. Imagine if WalMart put out a commercial more publicly endorsing their support of Obamacare. Imagine the backlash from consumers for supporting that cause. As long as we get the names of those groups funding these ads, we can vote with our dollars. Most companies will not put out ads that will lose their customer base. Think about it.
http://towneforcongress.com/ - Support Jake Towne
www.ivaw.org - Iraq Veterans Against the War
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.filmsforaction.org - Activist Documentary Library
www.enduswars.org -End the Wars on Principle
that's a great point
that's a great point
Vote Murray Hill, Inc!
PR film Murray Hill, Inc. has actually begun its run for Congress, as a first test of corporate personhood in Congress. Their tongue-in-cheek stunt is getting a lot of media coverage. Should be interesting to follow this.
Here is MHI's first campaign ad
Here is MHI's web page declaring its candidacy
And yes, here's MHI's Facebook page