Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

[Intense]

Voice is Voice. It stands or falls on It's own merit. Truth V.S. Spin, censorship plays only one role here. It gives an edge to Who is in charge at the time.
Too many bogus material coming from the Left, this last Decade, with Our hands tied, was wrong. Too many false unanswered claims.
What Your claim fails to address is the effects of Commercialism, Lobbying Efforts, which are pretty much independent of Free Speech Issues. You presume that something Slanted, Partial, and Arbitrary is Our best Fix. It's not.
In the beginning Lobbying was not allowed at all, I find merit there. The concept of Government being the Referee, not favoring either side, with players on one team or the other, not burdened with bets on outcome, is something I would like to see Us return to. Surely, these issues are more damaging than, giving each side in a dispute an opportunity to Voice Publicly, on merit?

 

[goldcatt]

Voice is Voice. It stands or falls on It's own merit. Truth V.S. Spin, censorship plays only one role here. It gives an edge to Who is in charge at the time.
Too many bogus material coming from the Left, this last Decade, with Our hands tied, was wrong. Too many false unanswered claims.
What Your claim fails to address is the effects of Commercialism, Lobbying Efforts, which are pretty much independent of Free Speech Issues. You presume that something Slanted, Partial, and Arbitrary is Our best Fix. It's not.
In the beginning Lobbying was not allowed at all, I find merit there. The concept of Government being the Referee, not favoring either side, with players on one team or the other, not burdened with bets on outcome, is something I would like to see Us return to. Surely, these issues are more damaging than, giving each side in a dispute an opportunity to Voice Publicly, on merit?

What dispute, and what merit? If people are attacking corporations and unions unjustly, those entities already had many avenues to fight back using already-protected commercial speech. Have you done any research on the nature and scope of protected commercial speech, which included limited political rights?

If these entities had no free speech rights, they would have no PR, no independent marketing, no ability to disseminate press releases, no ability to own media outlets (OK, that's not such a good thing, but it's still their right), no ability to lobby.....there's more, but you get the idea. And all of this was protected under the idea of commercial speech.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I still fail to see how funnelling unlimited amounts of cash from partially or completely unknown sources through shells and into the already corrupted political process is a way to address false attacks against corporations. Or unions, for that matter.

I hope I'm reading this wrong, but do you think hiding behind a legal shell that basically removes all personal responsibility for words and actions is going to somehow encourage Truth instead of spin?

 

[Intense]

Voice is Voice. It stands or falls on It's own merit. Truth V.S. Spin, censorship plays only one role here. It gives an edge to Who is in charge at the time.
Too many bogus material coming from the Left, this last Decade, with Our hands tied, was wrong. Too many false unanswered claims.
What Your claim fails to address is the effects of Commercialism, Lobbying Efforts, which are pretty much independent of Free Speech Issues. You presume that something Slanted, Partial, and Arbitrary is Our best Fix. It's not.
In the beginning Lobbying was not allowed at all, I find merit there. The concept of Government being the Referee, not favoring either side, with players on one team or the other, not burdened with bets on outcome, is something I would like to see Us return to. Surely, these issues are more damaging than, giving each side in a dispute an opportunity to Voice Publicly, on merit?

What dispute, and what merit? If people are attacking corporations and unions unjustly, those entities already had many avenues to fight back using already-protected commercial speech. Have you done any research on the nature and scope of protected commercial speech, which included limited political rights?

If these entities had no free speech rights, they would have no PR, no independent marketing, no ability to disseminate press releases, no ability to own media outlets (OK, that's not such a good thing, but it's still their right), no ability to lobby.....there's more, but you get the idea. And all of this was protected under the idea of commercial speech.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I still fail to see how funnelling unlimited amounts of cash from partially or completely unknown sources through shells and into the already corrupted political process is a way to address false attacks against corporations. Or unions, for that matter.

I hope I'm reading this wrong, but do you think hiding behind a legal shell that basically removes all personal responsibility for words and actions is going to somehow encourage Truth instead of spin?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I still fail to see how funnelling unlimited amounts of cash from partially or completely unknown sources through shells and into the already corrupted political process is a way to address false attacks against corporations. Or unions, for that matter.

I have no issue with requiring Full Disclosure behind Whom or What Entity is Contributing to Campaigns or Political Commercials, to the core or foundation level. Full Disclosure is reasonable, including affiliations. My concern is the blocking of intel, be it even in book or movie form, which was the core of the case. That was Obstruction, plain and simple. Your's at present is to in part either suppress or Identify Who is behind what claims. I have no problem with required disclosure and transparency, I encourage it.

 

[goldcatt]

Voice is Voice. It stands or falls on It's own merit. Truth V.S. Spin, censorship plays only one role here. It gives an edge to Who is in charge at the time.
Too many bogus material coming from the Left, this last Decade, with Our hands tied, was wrong. Too many false unanswered claims.
What Your claim fails to address is the effects of Commercialism, Lobbying Efforts, which are pretty much independent of Free Speech Issues. You presume that something Slanted, Partial, and Arbitrary is Our best Fix. It's not.
In the beginning Lobbying was not allowed at all, I find merit there. The concept of Government being the Referee, not favoring either side, with players on one team or the other, not burdened with bets on outcome, is something I would like to see Us return to. Surely, these issues are more damaging than, giving each side in a dispute an opportunity to Voice Publicly, on merit?

What dispute, and what merit? If people are attacking corporations and unions unjustly, those entities already had many avenues to fight back using already-protected commercial speech. Have you done any research on the nature and scope of protected commercial speech, which included limited political rights?

If these entities had no free speech rights, they would have no PR, no independent marketing, no ability to disseminate press releases, no ability to own media outlets (OK, that's not such a good thing, but it's still their right), no ability to lobby.....there's more, but you get the idea. And all of this was protected under the idea of commercial speech.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I still fail to see how funnelling unlimited amounts of cash from partially or completely unknown sources through shells and into the already corrupted political process is a way to address false attacks against corporations. Or unions, for that matter.

I hope I'm reading this wrong, but do you think hiding behind a legal shell that basically removes all personal responsibility for words and actions is going to somehow encourage Truth instead of spin?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I still fail to see how funnelling unlimited amounts of cash from partially or completely unknown sources through shells and into the already corrupted political process is a way to address false attacks against corporations. Or unions, for that matter.

I have no issue with requiring Full Disclosure behind Whom or What Entity is Contributing to Campaigns or Political Commercials, to the core or foundation level. Full Disclosure is reasonable, including affiliations. My concern is the blocking of intel, be it even in book or movie form, which was the core of the case. That was Obstruction, plain and simple. Your's at present is to in part either suppress or Identify Who is behind what claims. I have no problem with required disclosure and transparency, I encourage it.

But you cannot have full disclosure and transparency without compromising if not fully piercing the corporate veil, particularly in the case of closely held corporations.

A corporation or union itself can do nothing, it cannot speak or act or donate. Which is why the entity, itself, cannot be a full person. Alone it is no more than a tool or a machine. Protected speech for these entities was always limited not only for the purposes outlined in Austin, but also because of the nature of the corporate form itself as almost compeletely separate from the individuals who comprise them. To function properly, they have to be. There is no, or extremely little, personal accountability.

So if the right hinges on the individuals behind the shell, we will never have disclosure without also knowing who those people are and where the money is coming from. Which means compromising the corporate form itself, its benefits as well as its responsibilities. Sure you can go look up who the Board of Wal Mart is and view their financials, but as I've posted previously the vast, vast majority of corporations in this country are not publicly owned. Which means very little information is publicly available. Yet they have the same rights as those who are publicly owned and disclose their information, the decision only addresses the general form. Any disclosure requirement under the circumstances is less than nothing, it is ludicrous.

Is there, or should there be, a Constitutionally protected right to this kind of anonymity for the individuals hiding behind the corporate shell when individual contributions cannot be anonymous? Or, on the other hand, should the nature of the corporate form be modified to provide full public disclosure and personal responsibility? Think about it, then tell me who is getting special treatment here, and/or how it is good for corporations.

 

[Intense]

What dispute, and what merit? If people are attacking corporations and unions unjustly, those entities already had many avenues to fight back using already-protected commercial speech. Have you done any research on the nature and scope of protected commercial speech, which included limited political rights?

If these entities had no free speech rights, they would have no PR, no independent marketing, no ability to disseminate press releases, no ability to own media outlets (OK, that's not such a good thing, but it's still their right), no ability to lobby.....there's more, but you get the idea. And all of this was protected under the idea of commercial speech.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I still fail to see how funnelling unlimited amounts of cash from partially or completely unknown sources through shells and into the already corrupted political process is a way to address false attacks against corporations. Or unions, for that matter.

I hope I'm reading this wrong, but do you think hiding behind a legal shell that basically removes all personal responsibility for words and actions is going to somehow encourage Truth instead of spin?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I still fail to see how funnelling unlimited amounts of cash from partially or completely unknown sources through shells and into the already corrupted political process is a way to address false attacks against corporations. Or unions, for that matter.

I have no issue with requiring Full Disclosure behind Whom or What Entity is Contributing to Campaigns or Political Commercials, to the core or foundation level. Full Disclosure is reasonable, including affiliations. My concern is the blocking of intel, be it even in book or movie form, which was the core of the case. That was Obstruction, plain and simple. Your's at present is to in part either suppress or Identify Who is behind what claims. I have no problem with required disclosure and transparency, I encourage it.

But you cannot have full disclosure and transparency without compromising if not fully piercing the corporate veil, particularly in the case of closely held corporations.

A corporation or union itself can do nothing, it cannot speak or act or donate. Which is why the entity, itself, cannot be a full person. Alone it is no more than a tool or a machine. Protected speech for these entities was always limited not only for the purposes outlined in Austin, but also because of the nature of the corporate form itself as almost compeletely separate from the individuals who comprise them. To function properly, they have to be. There is no, or extremely little, personal accountability.

So if the right hinges on the individuals behind the shell, we will never have disclosure without also knowing who those people are and where the money is coming from. Which means compromising the corporate form itself, its benefits as well as its responsibilities. Sure you can go look up who the Board of Wal Mart is and view their financials, but as I've posted previously the vast, vast majority of corporations in this country are not publicly owned. Which means very little information is publicly available. Yet they have the same rights as those who are publicly owned and disclose their information, the decision only addresses the general form. Any disclosure requirement under the circumstances is less than nothing, it is ludicrous.

Is there, or should there be, a Constitutionally protected right to this kind of anonymity for the individuals hiding behind the corporate shell when individual contributions cannot be anonymous? Or, on the other hand, should the nature of the corporate form be modified to provide full public disclosure and personal responsibility? Think about it, then tell me who is getting special treatment here, and/or how it is good for corporations.

Is there, or should there be, a Constitutionally protected right to this kind of anonymity for the individuals hiding behind the corporate shell when individual contributions cannot be anonymous? Or, on the other hand, should the nature of the corporate form be modified to provide full public disclosure and personal responsibility?


The nature of the corporate form be modified to provide full public disclosure and personal responsibility.

 

[goldcatt]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I still fail to see how funnelling unlimited amounts of cash from partially or completely unknown sources through shells and into the already corrupted political process is a way to address false attacks against corporations. Or unions, for that matter.

I have no issue with requiring Full Disclosure behind Whom or What Entity is Contributing to Campaigns or Political Commercials, to the core or foundation level. Full Disclosure is reasonable, including affiliations. My concern is the blocking of intel, be it even in book or movie form, which was the core of the case. That was Obstruction, plain and simple. Your's at present is to in part either suppress or Identify Who is behind what claims. I have no problem with required disclosure and transparency, I encourage it.

But you cannot have full disclosure and transparency without compromising if not fully piercing the corporate veil, particularly in the case of closely held corporations.

A corporation or union itself can do nothing, it cannot speak or act or donate. Which is why the entity, itself, cannot be a full person. Alone it is no more than a tool or a machine. Protected speech for these entities was always limited not only for the purposes outlined in Austin, but also because of the nature of the corporate form itself as almost compeletely separate from the individuals who comprise them. To function properly, they have to be. There is no, or extremely little, personal accountability.

So if the right hinges on the individuals behind the shell, we will never have disclosure without also knowing who those people are and where the money is coming from. Which means compromising the corporate form itself, its benefits as well as its responsibilities. Sure you can go look up who the Board of Wal Mart is and view their financials, but as I've posted previously the vast, vast majority of corporations in this country are not publicly owned. Which means very little information is publicly available. Yet they have the same rights as those who are publicly owned and disclose their information, the decision only addresses the general form. Any disclosure requirement under the circumstances is less than nothing, it is ludicrous.

Is there, or should there be, a Constitutionally protected right to this kind of anonymity for the individuals hiding behind the corporate shell when individual contributions cannot be anonymous? Or, on the other hand, should the nature of the corporate form be modified to provide full public disclosure and personal responsibility? Think about it, then tell me who is getting special treatment here, and/or how it is good for corporations.

Is there, or should there be, a Constitutionally protected right to this kind of anonymity for the individuals hiding behind the corporate shell when individual contributions cannot be anonymous? Or, on the other hand, should the nature of the corporate form be modified to provide full public disclosure and personal responsibility?


The nature of the corporate form be modified to provide full public disclosure and personal responsibility.

The majority opinion says this isn't going to happen, although I can't see it myself. There's too much of an internal contradiction.

But if you think there's an anti-corporate sentiment now, just wait until people grasp how this will really work. Not to mention when the first news stories hit on the shysters and foreign interests gaming the system and getting around disclosure laws all of us regular people have to abide by because they registered a fictitious name and PO Box somewhere. No, this is not good for anyone involved.

 

[Intense]

But you cannot have full disclosure and transparency without compromising if not fully piercing the corporate veil, particularly in the case of closely held corporations.

A corporation or union itself can do nothing, it cannot speak or act or donate. Which is why the entity, itself, cannot be a full person. Alone it is no more than a tool or a machine. Protected speech for these entities was always limited not only for the purposes outlined in Austin, but also because of the nature of the corporate form itself as almost compeletely separate from the individuals who comprise them. To function properly, they have to be. There is no, or extremely little, personal accountability.

So if the right hinges on the individuals behind the shell, we will never have disclosure without also knowing who those people are and where the money is coming from. Which means compromising the corporate form itself, its benefits as well as its responsibilities. Sure you can go look up who the Board of Wal Mart is and view their financials, but as I've posted previously the vast, vast majority of corporations in this country are not publicly owned. Which means very little information is publicly available. Yet they have the same rights as those who are publicly owned and disclose their information, the decision only addresses the general form. Any disclosure requirement under the circumstances is less than nothing, it is ludicrous.

Is there, or should there be, a Constitutionally protected right to this kind of anonymity for the individuals hiding behind the corporate shell when individual contributions cannot be anonymous? Or, on the other hand, should the nature of the corporate form be modified to provide full public disclosure and personal responsibility? Think about it, then tell me who is getting special treatment here, and/or how it is good for corporations.

Is there, or should there be, a Constitutionally protected right to this kind of anonymity for the individuals hiding behind the corporate shell when individual contributions cannot be anonymous? Or, on the other hand, should the nature of the corporate form be modified to provide full public disclosure and personal responsibility?


The nature of the corporate form be modified to provide full public disclosure and personal responsibility.

The majority opinion says this isn't going to happen, although I can't see it myself. There's too much of an internal contradiction.

But if you think there's an anti-corporate sentiment now, just wait until people grasp how this will really work. Not to mention when the first news stories hit on the shysters and foreign interests gaming the system and getting around disclosure laws all of us regular people have to abide by because they registered a fictitious name and PO Box somewhere. No, this is not good for anyone involved.

Full Disclosure, or the Adds don't run. FCC has the Power. Bad Claims are torn apart on content, just the same.

 

[goldcatt]

Is there, or should there be, a Constitutionally protected right to this kind of anonymity for the individuals hiding behind the corporate shell when individual contributions cannot be anonymous? Or, on the other hand, should the nature of the corporate form be modified to provide full public disclosure and personal responsibility?


The nature of the corporate form be modified to provide full public disclosure and personal responsibility.

The majority opinion says this isn't going to happen, although I can't see it myself. There's too much of an internal contradiction.

But if you think there's an anti-corporate sentiment now, just wait until people grasp how this will really work. Not to mention when the first news stories hit on the shysters and foreign interests gaming the system and getting around disclosure laws all of us regular people have to abide by because they registered a fictitious name and PO Box somewhere. No, this is not good for anyone involved.

Full Disclosure, or the Adds don't run. FCC has the Power. Bad Claims are torn apart on content, just the same.

Do you think the FCC should be empowered to compromise the corporate shield then? I don't like that idea. It goes too far in the opposite direction. I don't think this decision would allow it anyway, it's only one simple sentence with no analysis but it does specifically state the limited liability aspect of the entity will not be affected. Or are we talking about merely more public disclosure rather than accountability? But if there's no accountability, how can government act on the disclosure? I don't think anyone's thought this all the way through yet. But it seems too circular. Chicken or egg?

 

[Navy1960]

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish


1. Deprivation of liberty to contract is forbidden by the Constitution if without due process of law, but restraint or regulation of this liberty, if reasonable in relation to its subject and if adopted for the protection of the community against evils menacing the health, safety, morals and welfare of the people, is due process.
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish


A question, as the conversation seems to have moved to a 14th Amendment issue, does not the fact that a corporation be it domestic, or have foreign roots, or a union if it were to spend unrestricted monies in support of a political candidate represent at least a menace to to the welfare of the people, and if so does it not meet the standards whereby that due process or liberty can be restrained? I'm frankly a little confused as to why someone would adcovate for "liberty" on an equal footing to the very people who actually elect those who create the laws that allow those entities to come into being in the first place. It is very obvious that these companies, unions, or whatever no matter what political side you happen to fall on, will as a result of this case have an impact on the election process and to believe otherwise is naive at best.

 

[Intense]

The majority opinion says this isn't going to happen, although I can't see it myself. There's too much of an internal contradiction.

But if you think there's an anti-corporate sentiment now, just wait until people grasp how this will really work. Not to mention when the first news stories hit on the shysters and foreign interests gaming the system and getting around disclosure laws all of us regular people have to abide by because they registered a fictitious name and PO Box somewhere. No, this is not good for anyone involved.

Full Disclosure, or the Adds don't run. FCC has the Power. Bad Claims are torn apart on content, just the same.

Do you think the FCC should be empowered to compromise the corporate shield then? I don't like that idea. It goes too far in the opposite direction. I don't think this decision would allow it anyway, it's only one simple sentence with no analysis but it does specifically state the limited liability aspect of the entity will not be affected. Or are we talking about merely more public disclosure rather than accountability? But if there's no accountability, how can government act on the disclosure? I don't think anyone's thought this all the way through yet. But it seems too circular. Chicken or egg?

Do you think the FCC should be empowered to compromise the corporate shield then?
No. FCC needs to be looked at itself. I think that Government has the obligation to Protect It's Citizens from harm. I believe that The Health and Welfare Clause of The Constitution empowers the Federal Government to Hold All Interests to account, Public and Private, that includes Organization and Affiliation. The Fed is now accessing Personal Swiss Bank Accounts, think about it. They have the power to follow the money.

For Tax Purposes alone, They want to account for every penny. Well go for it.
Fed as a whole needs to rediscover Impartiality, Single Standard, multiple levels of application, fine, lose the partiality, and preference, and exemption. Learn to be flexible within the boundaries of Reason and ability without the compromise with corruption. Speech is not the issue, squashing it and running through misguided regulation, through manipulation, intimidation, false undisputed argument is. What is at risk here besides Smear campaigns? What is Obama to do when the Victim argues back?

Our Kids are being brain washed, at great expense to despise the Free Market, Capitalism, The Industrial Revolution, Their Heritage, to be replaced by what? The State is not God. In many places around the globe, it is no better than the average Chicago Crime Syndicate.
We need to be promoting, Conscience, Liberty, True Justice with more equal access as opposed to Privileged Access, and the respect of Private Property. You have a Right to the fruits of Your labor. Government wants a cut, Fine, by the consent of the Governed. Government Pay Role is way past that.

Is the problem Freedom of Speech? Far from it. The problem is when the powers that be have things exposed that are true, embarrassing, and question both legal authority and right. Easier to take out the messenger, than answer the charge. This is the bottom line.

 

[Intense]

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish


1. Deprivation of liberty to contract is forbidden by the Constitution if without due process of law, but restraint or regulation of this liberty, if reasonable in relation to its subject and if adopted for the protection of the community against evils menacing the health, safety, morals and welfare of the people, is due process.
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish


A question, as the conversation seems to have moved to a 14th Amendment issue, does not the fact that a corporation be it domestic, or have foreign roots, or a union if it were to spend unrestricted monies in support of a political candidate represent at least a menace to to the welfare of the people, and if so does it not meet the standards whereby that due process or liberty can be restrained? I'm frankly a little confused as to why someone would adcovate for "liberty" on an equal footing to the very people who actually elect those who create the laws that allow those entities to come into being in the first place. It is very obvious that these companies, unions, or whatever no matter what political side you happen to fall on, will as a result of this case have an impact on the election process and to believe otherwise is naive at best.

My whole argument on that matter is the argument is past tense. What single election have they not had an influence on, by one means or another? The History is jaded from the start. The one distinction in the argument, is in one sense the powers that be manipulate and hide that which serves their side, and obstruct and censor the other. My argument is to let arguments stand or fall on merit, dissecting the argument itself, and weighting it point by point rather than disallowing something without any knowledge of content, because you might be opposed to the source. Why not have trials then, where the defense is not allowed to speak? Should We bring Hamilton Witch Hunt Logic back? No.

Tracking Political Advertising to the Penny, go for it. Make believe that horrendous abuses were not going on before this decision, is head in the sand.

 

[goldcatt]

Full Disclosure, or the Adds don't run. FCC has the Power. Bad Claims are torn apart on content, just the same.

Do you think the FCC should be empowered to compromise the corporate shield then? I don't like that idea. It goes too far in the opposite direction. I don't think this decision would allow it anyway, it's only one simple sentence with no analysis but it does specifically state the limited liability aspect of the entity will not be affected. Or are we talking about merely more public disclosure rather than accountability? But if there's no accountability, how can government act on the disclosure? I don't think anyone's thought this all the way through yet. But it seems too circular. Chicken or egg?

Do you think the FCC should be empowered to compromise the corporate shield then?
No. FCC needs to be looked at itself. I think that Government has the obligation to Protect It's Citizens from harm. I believe that The Health and Welfare Clause of The Constitution empowers the Federal Government to Hold All Interests to account, Public and Private, that includes Organization and Affiliation. The Fed is now accessing Personal Swiss Bank Accounts, think about it. They have the power to follow the money.

For Tax Purposes alone, They want to account for every penny. Well go for it.
Fed as a whole needs to rediscover Impartiality, Single Standard, multiple levels of application, fine, lose the partiality, and preference, and exemption. Learn to be flexible within the boundaries of Reason and ability without the compromise with corruption. Speech is not the issue, squashing it and running through misguided regulation, through manipulation, intimidation, false undisputed argument is. What is at risk here besides Smear campaigns? What is Obama to do when the Victim argues back?

Our Kids are being brain washed, at great expense to despise the Free Market, Capitalism, The Industrial Revolution, Their Heritage, to be replaced by what? The State is not God. In many places around the globe, it is no better than the average Chicago Crime Syndicate.
We need to be promoting, Conscience, Liberty, True Justice with more equal access as opposed to Privileged Access, and the respect of Private Property. You have a Right to the fruits of Your labor. Government wants a cut, Fine, by the consent of the Governed. Government Pay Role is way past that.

Is the problem Freedom of Speech? Far from it. The problem is when the powers that be have things exposed that are true, embarrassing, and question both legal authority and right. Easier to take out the messenger, than answer the charge. This is the bottom line.

Now you're going back to a partisan argument about the effectivness of certain speakers rather than a Constitutional one about the nature of free speech. They are two separate animals. I can't speak for anybody else, but I'm certainly not arguing that corporations or unions should be muzzled. However they already enjoyed the protected rights to sue and be sued as well as to utilize broadly defined commercial speech to counter what you chracterize as "brainwashing". This decision does nothing to solve what you see as the problem, only the corporate entities themselves can do that. And their best tools are the ones that were already in their toolbox before this case was decided.

If anything, from a legal (as opposed to practical) standpoint I see this as jeopardizing the corporations. Either fundamentally and structurally, or in the eye of public opinion to the extent that "corporation" becomes as much of a stigma in the eye of the average citizen as "commie" at a McCarthy hearing. I've said it before, I have no idea how anyone will fashion a coherent body of law from the inherent contradictions in this decision both on its own and when laid aside other bodies of law dealing with the subject of corporations - but maybe they just won't pretend it has to make sense and carry on with whatever fiction they deem necessary. It's going to be interesting to watch.

 

[goldcatt]

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish


1. Deprivation of liberty to contract is forbidden by the Constitution if without due process of law, but restraint or regulation of this liberty, if reasonable in relation to its subject and if adopted for the protection of the community against evils menacing the health, safety, morals and welfare of the people, is due process.
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish


A question, as the conversation seems to have moved to a 14th Amendment issue, does not the fact that a corporation be it domestic, or have foreign roots, or a union if it were to spend unrestricted monies in support of a political candidate represent at least a menace to to the welfare of the people, and if so does it not meet the standards whereby that due process or liberty can be restrained? I'm frankly a little confused as to why someone would adcovate for "liberty" on an equal footing to the very people who actually elect those who create the laws that allow those entities to come into being in the first place. It is very obvious that these companies, unions, or whatever no matter what political side you happen to fall on, will as a result of this case have an impact on the election process and to believe otherwise is naive at best.

They've always had an impact, the question on that issue is what level of impact is an appropriate level to which Constitutional protection should be granted and whether there should be reasonable restrictions on political spending by these entities in keeping with Parrish and its progeny, among others.

In case anybody didn't figure it out already, I side with the dissenting Justices here.

 

[Navy1960]

This is not to say that the First Amendment is irrelevant to public broadcasting. On the contrary, it has a major role to play as the Congress itself recognized in 326, which forbids FCC interference with "the right [395 U.S. 367, 390] of free speech by means of radio communication." Because of the scarcity of radio frequencies, the Government is permitted to put restraints on licensees in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium. But the people as a whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. See FCC v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 475 (1940); FCC v. Allentown Broadcasting Corp., 349 U.S. 358, 361 -362 (1955); 2 Z. Chafee, Government and Mass Communications 546 (1947). It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited market-place of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes


First of all Intense it's just as naive to believe that there was no influence on elections prior to this decision. Where I take issue on this matter is really simple actually, a company or a union is an entity created by law and exists only because of law. We the PEOPLE elect those members of congress or various legislators that enact those laws, and to suggest that those companies, and unions are on equal footing under the law with the very people that created them is highly inconsistant with the founding principles of this nation. Thomas Jeffersons bill to the Virgina legislature is believed to be where the roots of the 1st Amendment can be traced.

that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor
under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude
his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or
propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a
dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because
he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule
of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;
Thomas Jefferson's Bill for Religious Freedom in Virginia

It's quite clear that Thomas Jefferson was speaking of the opinions of men (people) where the roots of Free Speech in the 1st Amendment stem.

“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.

While I respect the courts decision in the recent case, and disagree with it because, I disagree with the Santa Clara case as well. I tend to be of the opinion that our Govt. was formed for the benefit of it's people. If corporations were on equal constitutional footing with people from the outset there would be no need for this,

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

“ [The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"

 

[Intense]

Do you think the FCC should be empowered to compromise the corporate shield then? I don't like that idea. It goes too far in the opposite direction. I don't think this decision would allow it anyway, it's only one simple sentence with no analysis but it does specifically state the limited liability aspect of the entity will not be affected. Or are we talking about merely more public disclosure rather than accountability? But if there's no accountability, how can government act on the disclosure? I don't think anyone's thought this all the way through yet. But it seems too circular. Chicken or egg?

Do you think the FCC should be empowered to compromise the corporate shield then?
No. FCC needs to be looked at itself. I think that Government has the obligation to Protect It's Citizens from harm. I believe that The Health and Welfare Clause of The Constitution empowers the Federal Government to Hold All Interests to account, Public and Private, that includes Organization and Affiliation. The Fed is now accessing Personal Swiss Bank Accounts, think about it. They have the power to follow the money.

For Tax Purposes alone, They want to account for every penny. Well go for it.
Fed as a whole needs to rediscover Impartiality, Single Standard, multiple levels of application, fine, lose the partiality, and preference, and exemption. Learn to be flexible within the boundaries of Reason and ability without the compromise with corruption. Speech is not the issue, squashing it and running through misguided regulation, through manipulation, intimidation, false undisputed argument is. What is at risk here besides Smear campaigns? What is Obama to do when the Victim argues back?

Our Kids are being brain washed, at great expense to despise the Free Market, Capitalism, The Industrial Revolution, Their Heritage, to be replaced by what? The State is not God. In many places around the globe, it is no better than the average Chicago Crime Syndicate.
We need to be promoting, Conscience, Liberty, True Justice with more equal access as opposed to Privileged Access, and the respect of Private Property. You have a Right to the fruits of Your labor. Government wants a cut, Fine, by the consent of the Governed. Government Pay Role is way past that.

Is the problem Freedom of Speech? Far from it. The problem is when the powers that be have things exposed that are true, embarrassing, and question both legal authority and right. Easier to take out the messenger, than answer the charge. This is the bottom line.

Now you're going back to a partisan argument about the effectivness of certain speakers rather than a Constitutional one about the nature of free speech. They are two separate animals. I can't speak for anybody else, but I'm certainly not arguing that corporations or unions should be muzzled. However they already enjoyed the protected rights to sue and be sued as well as to utilize broadly defined commercial speech to counter what you chracterize as "brainwashing". This decision does nothing to solve what you see as the problem, only the corporate entities themselves can do that. And their best tools are the ones that were already in their toolbox before this case was decided.

If anything, from a legal (as opposed to practical) standpoint I see this as jeopardizing the corporations. Either fundamentally and structurally, or in the eye of public opinion to the extent that "corporation" becomes as much of a stigma in the eye of the average citizen as "commie" at a McCarthy hearing. I've said it before, I have no idea how anyone will fashion a coherent body of law from the inherent contradictions in this decision both on its own and when laid aside other bodies of law dealing with the subject of corporations - but maybe they just won't pretend it has to make sense and carry on with whatever fiction they deem necessary. It's going to be interesting to watch.

I support Action based on content, not in spite of it. No back pedaling. First Amendment Protects Speech, based on category, not source. The hypothetic dam broke a long time ago Goldcatt. Can you show any legislation on the matter that is impartial in qualification to participate? Can you insure that dead people or pets don't vote, or that each votes only once? Can you insure against Illegal Immigrants not Voting under False Identity? Can you insure Picture I.D.? The Powers that be insure against that. Election Reform? Start with the crazy concept of One Person One Vote. That is the battle, not censorship. Stop protecting the Lie, by silencing the Witnesses.

 

[Intense]

This is not to say that the First Amendment is irrelevant to public broadcasting. On the contrary, it has a major role to play as the Congress itself recognized in 326, which forbids FCC interference with "the right [395 U.S. 367, 390] of free speech by means of radio communication." Because of the scarcity of radio frequencies, the Government is permitted to put restraints on licensees in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium. But the people as a whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. See FCC v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 475 (1940); FCC v. Allentown Broadcasting Corp., 349 U.S. 358, 361 -362 (1955); 2 Z. Chafee, Government and Mass Communications 546 (1947). It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited market-place of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes


First of all Intense it's just as naive to believe that there was no influence on elections prior to this decision. Where I take issue on this matter is really simple actually, a company or a union is an entity created by law and exists only because of law. We the PEOPLE elect those members of congress or various legislators that enact those laws, and to suggest that those companies, and unions are on equal footing under the law with the very people that created them is highly inconsistant with the founding principles of this nation. Thomas Jeffersons bill to the Virgina legislature is believed to be where the roots of the 1st Amendment can be traced.

that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor
under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude
his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or
propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a
dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because
he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule
of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;
Thomas Jefferson's Bill for Religious Freedom in Virginia

It's quite clear that Thomas Jefferson was speaking of the opinions of men (people) where the roots of Free Speech in the 1st Amendment stem.

“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.

While I respect the courts decision in the recent case, and disagree with it because, I disagree with the Santa Clara case as well. I tend to be of the opinion that our Govt. was formed for the benefit of it's people. If corporations were on equal constitutional footing with people from the outset there would be no need for this,

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

“ [The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"

I find Madison's perspective crystal clear.
I have no objection to qualified regulation of Corporation's, just unqualified censorship.

Amendments Offered in
Congress by James Madison
June 8, 1789
First. That there be prefixed to the Constitution a declaration, that all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people.

That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.

Secondly. That in article 1st, section 2, clause 3, these words be struck out, to wit: "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative, and until such enumeration shall be made;" and that in place thereof be inserted these words, to wit: "After the first actual enumeration, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number amounts to ——, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that the number shall never be less than ——, nor more than ——, but each State shall, after the first enumeration, have at least two Representatives; and prior thereto."

Thirdly. That in article 1st, section 6, clause 1, there be added to the end of the first sentence, these words, to wit: "But no law varying the compensation last ascertained shall operate before the next ensuing election of Representatives."

Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.

The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

No soldiers shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.

No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or one trial for the same offence; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

Fifthly. That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:

No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.

Sixthly. That, in article 3d, section 2, be annexed to the end of clause 2d, these words, to wit:

But no appeal to such court shall be allowed where the value in controversy shall not amount to —— dollars: nor shall any fact triable by jury, according to the course of common law, be otherwise re-examinable than may consist with the principles of common law.

Seventhly. That in article 3d, section 2, the third clause be struck out, and in its place be inserted the clauses following, to wit:

The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachments, and cases arising in the land or naval forces, or the militia when on actual service, in time of war or public danger) shall be by an impartial jury of freeholders of the vicinage, with the requisite of unanimity for conviction, of the right of challenge, and other accustomed requisites; and in all crimes punishable with loss of life or member, presentment or indictment by a grand jury shall be an essential preliminary, provided that in cases of crimes committed within any county which may be in possession of an enemy, or in which a general insurrection may prevail, the trial may by law be authorized in some other county of the same State, as near as may be to the seat of the offence.

In cases of crimes committed not within any county, the trial may by law be in such county as the laws shall have prescribed. In suits at common law, between man and man, the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate.

Eighthly. That immediately after article 6th, be inserted, as article 7th, the clauses following, to wit:

The powers delegated by this Constitution are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the Legislative Department shall never exercise the powers vested in the Executive or Judicial, nor the Executive exercise the powers vested in the Legislative or Judicial, nor the Judicial exercise the powers vested in the Legislative or Executive Departments.

The powers not delegated by this Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively.

Ninthly. That article 7th be numbered as article 8th.


Amendments Offered in Congress by James Madison

 

[Navy1960]

This is not to say that the First Amendment is irrelevant to public broadcasting. On the contrary, it has a major role to play as the Congress itself recognized in 326, which forbids FCC interference with "the right [395 U.S. 367, 390] of free speech by means of radio communication." Because of the scarcity of radio frequencies, the Government is permitted to put restraints on licensees in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium. But the people as a whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. See FCC v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 475 (1940); FCC v. Allentown Broadcasting Corp., 349 U.S. 358, 361 -362 (1955); 2 Z. Chafee, Government and Mass Communications 546 (1947). It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited market-place of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes


First of all Intense it's just as naive to believe that there was no influence on elections prior to this decision. Where I take issue on this matter is really simple actually, a company or a union is an entity created by law and exists only because of law. We the PEOPLE elect those members of congress or various legislators that enact those laws, and to suggest that those companies, and unions are on equal footing under the law with the very people that created them is highly inconsistant with the founding principles of this nation. Thomas Jeffersons bill to the Virgina legislature is believed to be where the roots of the 1st Amendment can be traced.

that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor
under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude
his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or
propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a
dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because
he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule
of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;
Thomas Jefferson's Bill for Religious Freedom in Virginia

It's quite clear that Thomas Jefferson was speaking of the opinions of men (people) where the roots of Free Speech in the 1st Amendment stem.

“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.

While I respect the courts decision in the recent case, and disagree with it because, I disagree with the Santa Clara case as well. I tend to be of the opinion that our Govt. was formed for the benefit of it's people. If corporations were on equal constitutional footing with people from the outset there would be no need for this,

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

“ [The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"

I find Madison's perspective crystal clear.
I have no objection to qualified regulation of Corporation's, just unqualified censorship.

Amendments Offered in
Congress by James Madison
June 8, 1789
First. That there be prefixed to the Constitution a declaration, that all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people.

That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.

Secondly. That in article 1st, section 2, clause 3, these words be struck out, to wit: "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative, and until such enumeration shall be made;" and that in place thereof be inserted these words, to wit: "After the first actual enumeration, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number amounts to ——, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that the number shall never be less than ——, nor more than ——, but each State shall, after the first enumeration, have at least two Representatives; and prior thereto."

Thirdly. That in article 1st, section 6, clause 1, there be added to the end of the first sentence, these words, to wit: "But no law varying the compensation last ascertained shall operate before the next ensuing election of Representatives."

Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.

The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

No soldiers shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.

No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or one trial for the same offence; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

Fifthly. That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:

No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.

Sixthly. That, in article 3d, section 2, be annexed to the end of clause 2d, these words, to wit:

But no appeal to such court shall be allowed where the value in controversy shall not amount to —— dollars: nor shall any fact triable by jury, according to the course of common law, be otherwise re-examinable than may consist with the principles of common law.

Seventhly. That in article 3d, section 2, the third clause be struck out, and in its place be inserted the clauses following, to wit:

The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachments, and cases arising in the land or naval forces, or the militia when on actual service, in time of war or public danger) shall be by an impartial jury of freeholders of the vicinage, with the requisite of unanimity for conviction, of the right of challenge, and other accustomed requisites; and in all crimes punishable with loss of life or member, presentment or indictment by a grand jury shall be an essential preliminary, provided that in cases of crimes committed within any county which may be in possession of an enemy, or in which a general insurrection may prevail, the trial may by law be authorized in some other county of the same State, as near as may be to the seat of the offence.

In cases of crimes committed not within any county, the trial may by law be in such county as the laws shall have prescribed. In suits at common law, between man and man, the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate.

Eighthly. That immediately after article 6th, be inserted, as article 7th, the clauses following, to wit:

The powers delegated by this Constitution are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the Legislative Department shall never exercise the powers vested in the Executive or Judicial, nor the Executive exercise the powers vested in the Legislative or Judicial, nor the Judicial exercise the powers vested in the Legislative or Executive Departments.

The powers not delegated by this Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively.

Ninthly. That article 7th be numbered as article 8th.


Amendments Offered in Congress by James Madison

Posted that exact same thing in this thread a while back, there is one constant that runs though Madison's commentary and that is this "people". It is wholly consistant with Jeffersons view which by the way Madison himself supported and is highly inconsistant with the Hamiltonian view. If you prefer Madison as I do, then perhaps you will like this as well...

James Madison

As a charter of incorporation the bill creates an artificial person previously not existing in law. It confers important civil rights and attributes, which could not otherwise be claimed. It is, though not precisely similar, at least equivalent, to the naturalization of an alien, by which certain new civil characters are acquired by him. Would Congress have had the power to naturalize, if it had not been expressly given?

In the power to make bye laws, the bill delegated a sort of legislative power, which is unquestionably an act of a high and important nature. He took notice of the only restraint on the bye laws, that they were not to be contrary to the law and the constitution of the bank; and asked what law was intended; if the law of the United States, the scantiness of their code would give a power, never before given to a corporation--and obnoxious to the States, whose laws would then be superceded not only by the laws of Congress, but by the bye laws of a corporation within their own jurisdiction. If the law intended, was the law of the State, then the State might make laws that would destroy an institution of the United States.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18: James Madison, The Bank Bill, House of Representatives

 

[goldcatt]

I find Madison's perspective crystal clear.
I have no objection to qualified regulation of Corporation's, just unqualified censorship.

Amendments Offered in
Congress by James Madison
June 8, 1789
First. That there be prefixed to the Constitution a declaration, that all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people.

That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.

Secondly. That in article 1st, section 2, clause 3, these words be struck out, to wit: "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative, and until such enumeration shall be made;" and that in place thereof be inserted these words, to wit: "After the first actual enumeration, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number amounts to ——, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that the number shall never be less than ——, nor more than ——, but each State shall, after the first enumeration, have at least two Representatives; and prior thereto."

Thirdly. That in article 1st, section 6, clause 1, there be added to the end of the first sentence, these words, to wit: "But no law varying the compensation last ascertained shall operate before the next ensuing election of Representatives."

Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.

The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

No soldiers shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.

No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or one trial for the same offence; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

Fifthly. That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:

No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.

Sixthly. That, in article 3d, section 2, be annexed to the end of clause 2d, these words, to wit:

But no appeal to such court shall be allowed where the value in controversy shall not amount to —— dollars: nor shall any fact triable by jury, according to the course of common law, be otherwise re-examinable than may consist with the principles of common law.

Seventhly. That in article 3d, section 2, the third clause be struck out, and in its place be inserted the clauses following, to wit:

The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachments, and cases arising in the land or naval forces, or the militia when on actual service, in time of war or public danger) shall be by an impartial jury of freeholders of the vicinage, with the requisite of unanimity for conviction, of the right of challenge, and other accustomed requisites; and in all crimes punishable with loss of life or member, presentment or indictment by a grand jury shall be an essential preliminary, provided that in cases of crimes committed within any county which may be in possession of an enemy, or in which a general insurrection may prevail, the trial may by law be authorized in some other county of the same State, as near as may be to the seat of the offence.

In cases of crimes committed not within any county, the trial may by law be in such county as the laws shall have prescribed. In suits at common law, between man and man, the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate.

Eighthly. That immediately after article 6th, be inserted, as article 7th, the clauses following, to wit:

The powers delegated by this Constitution are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the Legislative Department shall never exercise the powers vested in the Executive or Judicial, nor the Executive exercise the powers vested in the Legislative or Judicial, nor the Judicial exercise the powers vested in the Legislative or Executive Departments.

The powers not delegated by this Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively.

Ninthly. That article 7th be numbered as article 8th.


Amendments Offered in Congress by James Madison

I also find Madison crystal clear. And you see the common theme running through this excerpt, do you not? The People.

The same goes with the right of the People to assemble. Look at those words again: The right of the People to assemble. Not the rights of the Assembly created by people. The verb is always used, not the noun. I posted a link a while back with a great deal of information on the meaning and evolution of assembly. Go back and take a look again, with an eye to the common theme.

Either way, whether you look at personhood or assembly, the record is clear. Our rights under the First Amendment, other than press, belong to the People individually. That's what they were intended for and that's what they are - or were.

 

[theHawk]

The purpose of incorporating is to place a legal veil between the actions of the corporation and personal liability for its owners. In other words, actions performed by the corporation are separate and distinct from those of its owners with a very few exceptions. It is a separate entity for for all legal purposes (other than intentional criminal activity) - which is a benefit for its owners who would otherwise be personally liable, pay individual income taxes, and the like. With me so far?

I understand that fully goldcatt.
So why can't the corporation send out a message to protect its own interests? If a political group or movement seeks to damage or destroy the corporation, the corporation has no right to get its message out to the voters? Corporations are already allowed to buy air time for commericals, thats pretty much how television is funded. What government official makes the determination that the ad may be "political"? Why is there any need for the government to regulate that?

 

[Pajarito7]

Hmm well, why don't we force everyone to vote and get rid of the bad electoral system. That way our votes will really count and not be screwed by these super rich congressman in a presidential campaign. This works for the Australians then why not for us? Besides America isn't a democracy if we don't have any voters. We need to limit the number of times a senator can be re-elected because for many there's a disadvantage to bring change. If everyone voted I bet more people would be conscience of who really is beneficial for our state and who is not and that way candidates would have to fight fair and square. . . but that's just me. I think half of America doesn't even know what's going on in our laws until it hits them right then.

Corporations shouldn't have this power because they aren't citizens they are businesses. If we were socialists I'd beg to defer but because we are a free-market who can run business internationally from within the United States that means businesses have control, possibly of even foreign policy who's stretched out to poor countries. Don't you see its all about who gets the power? A business will do anything to make money, not to benefit the people. If businesses are allowed to intervene with politics then we should convert to a socialist-democracy.