Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

[goldcatt]

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?

You're making the same partisan talking point as Intense here. First, you assume a political group or movement is "out to get" corporations (never mind that the decision covers labor unions as well), then you state they should be able to take their message directly to the voters as the only or best way to counter it.

Why? Are the voters cutting out the middleman and voting directly for corporations and unions now? Or should these entities be exercising their already protected right to lobby Congress while exercising their already protected commercial speech to take their message to the consumer, who is the source of their profit? And no, one is not the same as the other. If it were, the Justices would merely have said so and the entire decision would have been unnecessary. Even they aren't that dishonest.

 

[Navy1960]

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.

First thought on your post, your correct we are not a democracy, we are a Republic that is democratic in nature. Your vote does count by the way , your vote within the state that you live in expresses the views both pro and con for whats best for that state. One of the primary reasons we have an electorial college is because the founders of this nation understood that the majority often times overlooks the needs of the minority and designed a system whereby there are checks and balances and those rights of the minority were protected. That is why a law that is good for Arizona, may not be the best law for Ohio , etc. and the same is true for a member of congress. The President for example is elected not by popular vote, but is elected by the states as it should be, there is a reason we are called United States and not United America. I will point out that had the form of Govt. such as direct democracy been appealing it would have been instituted at the time our Govt. was formed.

As for business in general, business is made up of people, and it is not the business itself that can be good or bad, but rather the people within them. A business by it's very nature exists to provide for those people and in theory the more profits that business makes the better life the people within that business can have. It is a concept that has brought countless Americans out of the depths of poverty into heights that no one could ever have dreamed of. The problem is that many wish to condemn business itself for the bad acts of those within business when it is the PEOPLE that perform those acts. As for the ability to be on equal footing with a citizen, IMHO as can be seen by my numerous posts on here, I fo not believe business , corporation, union, whatever are on equal footing with the very people that create them in the first place. It's rather like saying the car you drive is guilty for the speeding ticket that you the driver received and the founding fathers understood this concept very well. Business, though when given the environment to thrive, which includes a Govt. that not only regulates to provide that environment is essential to a strong and bright future for this nation.

 

[goldcatt]

I'd like to add any corporate entity is a thing, a tool. By itself it has no conscience or morality, it just is. Like any other tool it can be used for good or bad. Is fire inherently evil? Is money? A car? All can be used to help or harm - or even both at the same time.

And like any other tool, it is a Thing. It is not a person. The corporation particularly by its peculiar nature it is almost completely divorced in law from the individuals who control it. When you look at the commercial benefits of this it's a good thing. But it's also what makes a corporation (or union) used improperly so much more potentially destructive than everyday tools.

Unlike money, fire or a car there is almost no accountability or transparency for the individuals using it. The right of the people to associate in order to form these entities must be protected. The entities' rights as needed to conduct the purpose for which they were invented and formed - that being business - is vital.

But these are not associations formed for the purpose of speech, they are formed for legal liability and sometimes capitalization purposes. The lack of transparency and accountability as well as the wall between the individual and the corporate entity is the problem. It's the nature of the entity that causes the concern here, not any judgment on inherent morality.

 

[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

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

I hear You completely. Madison first got My attention with this... Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785) ..... though it is rooted in John Locke, He fully grasped it. Madison was the One most involved with the Constitution, not Jefferson, who was very skeptical of It, most likely because of the likes of Hamilton and His kind. Yes Madison and Jefferson were like birds of a feather. Virginia /Kentucky Resolutions. Hamilton's true colors came out by His own hand here... Hamilton: The Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791 .... Big contradictions from The Federalist Papers and when He was selling The Constitution. Here are some eye opening perspectives of His, some I guess, to sensitive to talk about before the Constitution was ratified. I think He really got off on talking circles around His Adversaries, without regard for Conscience. The end does not justify the means. Having the charge to accomplish a charge is not license to assume by Any means, without regard to consequence. That is criminal.

For the Record I am against the Super Powers granted Corporations, especially when in joint Government Schemes, when They are unjustified, in Purpose, Intent, Application, Function, Measure. I just do not believe the Reigns lie within The First Amendment. It's the wrong battle.

 

[Intense]

Amendments Offered in Congress by James Madison

Goldcatt: 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.

Some of those Powers were reserved to The States. Their Constitutions speak for Themselves. Though I agree the Foundation of Society is something only found in Each Individual, "Conscience". Any Society that fails the Individual, through Mandate, Force, Fraud, Extortion, Etc... Will have much to answer for, and is far from Peace and Tranquility.

 

[Intense]

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.

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?

You're making the same partisan talking point as Intense here. First, you assume a political group or movement is "out to get" corporations (never mind that the decision covers labor unions as well), then you state they should be able to take their message directly to the voters as the only or best way to counter it.

Why? Are the voters cutting out the middleman and voting directly for corporations and unions now? Or should these entities be exercising their already protected right to lobby Congress while exercising their already protected commercial speech to take their message to the consumer, who is the source of their profit? And no, one is not the same as the other. If it were, the Justices would merely have said so and the entire decision would have been unnecessary. Even they aren't that dishonest.

My position is My own, not partisan. I just don't think the First Amendment is selective or arbitrary.

 

[Navy1960]

It's interesting when you look at the USSC in its decision process on the matter of corporations from the most recent one all the way back to the Marshall Court. This recent decision points to a case that seems to imply based on it's decision that the meaning of " the press" is an all encompassing meaning, in that it is not just limited to those businesses engaged in the business of journalism by whatever means, rather it seems to indicate that " the press" means speech in other forms and can be extended to radio, and print. Although this recent decision did not go into much detail on the subject they seemed to hint around on this fact when citing this case as the establishment for corporate citizenship. You will have to forgive me, as I posted it in a previous post and will go back and look the case up again and post it once more. Whats interesting however if you contrast this case with other such as with the citation that says , that freedom of speech I is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. See FCC v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station it tends to imply that while those corporations, unions, etc. Free Speech is only what those that hear the message decide it should be. There is a lot of merit to the case that says companies should not be allowed to purchase commerical airtime simply because they are engaged in a for profit enterprise. However I still remain convinced that the constitution is very clear that if a company is engaged in a commercial enterprise across state lines as would be the case with an ad on a network for a political candidate on a national level, then that is subject to regulation under the commerce clause. If a state should decide to limit or not limit those kinds of ads for those run only within the state then that of course is up to that individual state. In the end I am very much in favor of a free market and believe that part of the job of regulating commerce is also to provide an atmosphere where commerce prospers.

 

[goldcatt]

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?

You're making the same partisan talking point as Intense here. First, you assume a political group or movement is "out to get" corporations (never mind that the decision covers labor unions as well), then you state they should be able to take their message directly to the voters as the only or best way to counter it.

Why? Are the voters cutting out the middleman and voting directly for corporations and unions now? Or should these entities be exercising their already protected right to lobby Congress while exercising their already protected commercial speech to take their message to the consumer, who is the source of their profit? And no, one is not the same as the other. If it were, the Justices would merely have said so and the entire decision would have been unnecessary. Even they aren't that dishonest.

My position is My own, not partisan. I just don't think the First Amendment is selective or arbitrary.

I was speaking of the unsupported assertion that there is some sort of organized false attack or series of attacks being leveled from a political source at corporations in general, and that Constitutionally protected unlimited political spending aimed at voters is both justified and necessary as a form of self-defense. That is a blatantly partisan talking point that has been widely used in multiple threads by the usual suspects. Unless you or any of the others casually tossing that about have evidence you used to arrive at your opinion independently....?

 

[goldcatt]

Amendments Offered in Congress by James Madison

Goldcatt: 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.

Some of those Powers were reserved to The States. Their Constitutions speak for Themselves. Though I agree the Foundation of Society is something only found in Each Individual, "Conscience". Any Society that fails the Individual, through Mandate, Force, Fraud, Extortion, Etc... Will have much to answer for, and is far from Peace and Tranquility.

I actually agree with a lot of what you say here. Specifically, that society must be vigilant in protecting the freedom of the individual and will have much to answer for if it fails in this task. Where we seem to disagree is as to whther those protections should be limited to the individual or if entities that are separate from the individual should enjoy the same protections. (Or in this case, from a practical standpoint perhaps greater protections)

You can see where I stand.

 

[Intense]

It's interesting when you look at the USSC in its decision process on the matter of corporations from the most recent one all the way back to the Marshall Court. This recent decision points to a case that seems to imply based on it's decision that the meaning of " the press" is an all encompassing meaning, in that it is not just limited to those businesses engaged in the business of journalism by whatever means, rather it seems to indicate that " the press" means speech in other forms and can be extended to radio, and print. Although this recent decision did not go into much detail on the subject they seemed to hint around on this fact when citing this case as the establishment for corporate citizenship. You will have to forgive me, as I posted it in a previous post and will go back and look the case up again and post it once more. Whats interesting however if you contrast this case with other such as with the citation that says , that freedom of speech I is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. See FCC v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station it tends to imply that while those corporations, unions, etc. Free Speech is only what those that hear the message decide it should be. There is a lot of merit to the case that says companies should not be allowed to purchase commerical airtime simply because they are engaged in a for profit enterprise. However I still remain convinced that the constitution is very clear that if a company is engaged in a commercial enterprise across state lines as would be the case with an ad on a network for a political candidate on a national level, then that is subject to regulation under the commerce clause. If a state should decide to limit or not limit those kinds of ads for those run only within the state then that of course is up to that individual state. In the end I am very much in favor of a free market and believe that part of the job of regulating commerce is also to provide an atmosphere where commerce prospers.

Well Stated. If what is being Oppressed is an integral part of the equation in determining outcome, both the Speaker and the Listener are hurt by being denied either the full story, or fair and honest perspective. The Trust of Government Authority, is subservient to It's Purpose for Being. The Principle is not servant to the foundation, structure, or function, constructed to serve It. Truth, Justice are Paramount, what stands in the way of that needs close examination. The Listeners Rights too, are being obstructed by censorship.

 

[Intense]

You're making the same partisan talking point as Intense here. First, you assume a political group or movement is "out to get" corporations (never mind that the decision covers labor unions as well), then you state they should be able to take their message directly to the voters as the only or best way to counter it.

Why? Are the voters cutting out the middleman and voting directly for corporations and unions now? Or should these entities be exercising their already protected right to lobby Congress while exercising their already protected commercial speech to take their message to the consumer, who is the source of their profit? And no, one is not the same as the other. If it were, the Justices would merely have said so and the entire decision would have been unnecessary. Even they aren't that dishonest.

My position is My own, not partisan. I just don't think the First Amendment is selective or arbitrary.

I was speaking of the unsupported assertion that there is some sort of organized false attack or series of attacks being leveled from a political source at corporations in general, and that Constitutionally protected unlimited political spending aimed at voters is both justified and necessary as a form of self-defense. That is a blatantly partisan talking point that has been widely used in multiple threads by the usual suspects. Unless you or any of the others casually tossing that about have evidence you used to arrive at your opinion independently....?

Goldcatt, Obama demonize's whole Industries regularly. I think Doctor's cutting off limbs won the Idiot Prize hands down.

 

[Intense]

Amendments Offered in Congress by James Madison

Goldcatt: 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.

Some of those Powers were reserved to The States. Their Constitutions speak for Themselves. Though I agree the Foundation of Society is something only found in Each Individual, "Conscience". Any Society that fails the Individual, through Mandate, Force, Fraud, Extortion, Etc... Will have much to answer for, and is far from Peace and Tranquility.

I actually agree with a lot of what you say here. Specifically, that society must be vigilant in protecting the freedom of the individual and will have much to answer for if it fails in this task. Where we seem to disagree is as to whther those protections should be limited to the individual or if entities that are separate from the individual should enjoy the same protections. (Or in this case, from a practical standpoint perhaps greater protections)

You can see where I stand.

I'm not for empowering Corporations anymore that they are, I support Limit. Control, and Accountability. I support controls under The Commerce Clause, Just not under The First Amendment. We are pretty parallel over the rest of it. Abuse, Negligence, Fraud, Incompetence, should be addressed, in the proper venue. Nail Them not for having the courage to speak, but when the Right is abused. That would imply Proof of wrong doing.

 

[goldcatt]

My position is My own, not partisan. I just don't think the First Amendment is selective or arbitrary.

I was speaking of the unsupported assertion that there is some sort of organized false attack or series of attacks being leveled from a political source at corporations in general, and that Constitutionally protected unlimited political spending aimed at voters is both justified and necessary as a form of self-defense. That is a blatantly partisan talking point that has been widely used in multiple threads by the usual suspects. Unless you or any of the others casually tossing that about have evidence you used to arrive at your opinion independently....?

Goldcatt, Obama demonize's whole Industries regularly. I think Doctor's cutting off limbs won the Idiot Prize hands down.

I don't mean to single you out and put you specifically under the microscope here, sorry. I think it came out that way. But you're using a general statement and an opinion to back up what is a reason given by some conservatives to support a major change in how the Constitution is applied. That takes facts and support, not generalities and opinion. It's not just you, and like I said before I can see in a general sense where you're coming from. But it's a partisan political argument being widely used to justify a Constitutional decision. To me anyway, the COTUS and its application should be above partisanship.

Of course I might be biased, since I think all parties are nothing anymore but co-opted sellouts.

 

[goldcatt]

Goldcatt: 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.

Some of those Powers were reserved to The States. Their Constitutions speak for Themselves. Though I agree the Foundation of Society is something only found in Each Individual, "Conscience". Any Society that fails the Individual, through Mandate, Force, Fraud, Extortion, Etc... Will have much to answer for, and is far from Peace and Tranquility.

I actually agree with a lot of what you say here. Specifically, that society must be vigilant in protecting the freedom of the individual and will have much to answer for if it fails in this task. Where we seem to disagree is as to whther those protections should be limited to the individual or if entities that are separate from the individual should enjoy the same protections. (Or in this case, from a practical standpoint perhaps greater protections)

You can see where I stand.

I'm not for empowering Corporations anymore that they are, I support Limit. Control, and Accountability. I support controls under The Commerce Clause, Just not under The First Amendment. We are pretty parallel over the rest of it. Abuse, Negligence, Fraud, Incompetence, should be addressed, in the proper venue. Nail Them not for having the courage to speak, but when the Right is abused. That would imply Proof of wrong doing.

So you would limit the corporate entity through the Commerce Clause rather than the First Amendment? Interesting. I wonder if using the Commerce Clause in any kind of campaign-related transparency issue to control the potential end-runs around the law by foreigners and others is possible now, though? Good question. I'd like to say no, but....it's a good question.

 

[Intense]

I was speaking of the unsupported assertion that there is some sort of organized false attack or series of attacks being leveled from a political source at corporations in general, and that Constitutionally protected unlimited political spending aimed at voters is both justified and necessary as a form of self-defense. That is a blatantly partisan talking point that has been widely used in multiple threads by the usual suspects. Unless you or any of the others casually tossing that about have evidence you used to arrive at your opinion independently....?

Goldcatt, Obama demonize's whole Industries regularly. I think Doctor's cutting off limbs won the Idiot Prize hands down.

I don't mean to single you out and put you specifically under the microscope here, sorry. I think it came out that way. But you're using a general statement and an opinion to back up what is a reason given by some conservatives to support a major change in how the Constitution is applied. That takes facts and support, not generalities and opinion. It's not just you, and like I said before I can see in a general sense where you're coming from. But it's a partisan political argument being widely used to justify a Constitutional decision. To me anyway, the COTUS and its application should be above partisanship.

Of course I might be biased, since I think all parties are nothing anymore but co-opted sellouts.

I think it was a good decision. I think They should have deliberated more, and better addressed Book Censorship, which was addressed, and The Government claimed the Right to, among other things. I do not like 5/4 splits in general. I think They should come together further discuss valid concern, weigh them in context, order them, and find better agreement.

I want to try to read it all the way through. God You Guy's make my head hurt, I'm blue collar.

 

[Intense]

I actually agree with a lot of what you say here. Specifically, that society must be vigilant in protecting the freedom of the individual and will have much to answer for if it fails in this task. Where we seem to disagree is as to whther those protections should be limited to the individual or if entities that are separate from the individual should enjoy the same protections. (Or in this case, from a practical standpoint perhaps greater protections)

You can see where I stand.

I'm not for empowering Corporations anymore that they are, I support Limit. Control, and Accountability. I support controls under The Commerce Clause, Just not under The First Amendment. We are pretty parallel over the rest of it. Abuse, Negligence, Fraud, Incompetence, should be addressed, in the proper venue. Nail Them not for having the courage to speak, but when the Right is abused. That would imply Proof of wrong doing.

So you would limit the corporate entity through the Commerce Clause rather than the First Amendment? Interesting. I wonder if using the Commerce Clause in any kind of campaign-related transparency issue to control the potential end-runs around the law by foreigners and others is possible now, though? Good question. I'd like to say no, but....it's a good question.

 

[goldcatt]

Goldcatt, Obama demonize's whole Industries regularly. I think Doctor's cutting off limbs won the Idiot Prize hands down.

I don't mean to single you out and put you specifically under the microscope here, sorry. I think it came out that way. But you're using a general statement and an opinion to back up what is a reason given by some conservatives to support a major change in how the Constitution is applied. That takes facts and support, not generalities and opinion. It's not just you, and like I said before I can see in a general sense where you're coming from. But it's a partisan political argument being widely used to justify a Constitutional decision. To me anyway, the COTUS and its application should be above partisanship.

Of course I might be biased, since I think all parties are nothing anymore but co-opted sellouts.

I think it was a good decision. I think They should have deliberated more, and better addressed Book Censorship, which was addressed, and The Government claimed the Right to, among other things. I do not like 5/4 splits in general. I think They should come together further discuss valid concern, weigh them in context, order them, and find better agreement.

I want to try to read it all the way through. God You Guy's make my head hurt, I'm blue collar.

If I could figure out how e-mail you an excedrin, I would.

 

[Navy1960]

Here is the case that I made reference to in my post, it was referenced in the recent decision and was seen in the Roberts Opinion...

These considerations weigh against retaining our decision in Austin . First, as the majority explains, that decision was an “aberration” insofar as it departed from the robust protections we had granted political speech in our earlier cases. Ante , at 39; see also Buckley , supra ; First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti ,
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON v. BELLOTTI, 435 U.S. 765 (1978)

Freedom of the press is a `fundamental personal right' which `is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. . . . The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.' . . . The informative function asserted by representatives of the organized press . . . is also performed by lecturers, political pollsters, novelists, academic researchers, and dramatists. Almost any author may quite accurately assert that he is contributing to the flow [435 U.S. 765, 802] of information to the public . . . ." Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 704 -705 (1972), quoting Lovell v. Griffin, supra, at 450, 452
FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Just thought this connection would at least explain some sort of reasoning behind this recent decision.

 

[goldcatt]

It explains some of the reasoning, but then why didn't the Court simply rely on Bellotti or related cases in a more narrowly focused decision instead of taking such a radical leap?

 

[Navy1960]

It explains some of the reasoning, but then why didn't the Court simply rely on Bellotti or related cases in a more narrowly focused decision instead of taking such a radical leap?

gold thats why I made mention earlier that it is inconsistant and IMHO I still believe that. There are several flaws in the reasoning behind going beyond the "free press" argument some of them I pointed out in precious case law as well as other parts of the constitution itself that were not even addressed in this case. It's another reason why I also said that from a commercial point for view, that these companies should be allowed to spend money on advertising as they wish, but if you look at previous case law it's pretty clear that if that advertising reaches across state lines it is subject to regulation and even restriction.