Doesn't look like there's much room to defend this decision.

"Even among people who agree at least somewhat with the Tea Party movement, which advocates less government regulation, 73 percent oppose the high court's rejection of this particular law. Among the subset who agree strongly with the Tea Party's positions on the issues 14 percent of all adults [italics mine] fewer but still most, 56 percent, oppose the high court in this case."

BTW, what's that again about the Tea Party being "mainstream"? 14%? Must be using Vernon's calculator

Our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that 80 percent of Americans likewise oppose the ruling, including 65 percent who "strongly" oppose it, an unusually high intensity of sentiment.

Look for the corporate congress to inact on this.

ACLU supported the decision. They wrote a brief to the case.

Other than hyperpartisan rightwingers who initially supported the decision, pretty much everyone who now actually understands the effects of the ruling opposes it.

ACLU supported the decision. They wrote a brief to the case.

#3 | Posted by Petrous

Does the ACLU have any choice but to support the decision until the basis of corporate personhood is overturned?

The original wrong by the court was to hold that a corporation has similar rights to an individual.

These should probably be combined.

#1 True. but, since when does whether people like or don't like something matter in a judicial proceeding? Do you believe that Judges should take a poll of public opinion before delivering a legal opinion? I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this poll.

actually i like the decision.

and before you pounce on me i'll tell you why.

there should be a constitutional amendment to make sure corporations can't affect elections and it should probably go more toward limiting corporate influence.

The relevance is, if people knew this is what the law allows, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, they'd want the law changed.

Justice Alito's SOTU protestations notwithstanding...

#5 That's legit. But, can't help but think that people believe SC should make decisions because a majority believes one way or the other on it.

the supreme court interprets the constitution

if they think one thing.

and americans disagree then they should change the constitution accordingly.

If that means Soros, GE and the SEIU will no longer help Obama run the country then I'm in.

Perhaps if the Post stopped misleading its readers about the decision as it did today in reporting the poll, public opinion would look differently.

The misinformation begins right in the lede, where reporter Dan Eggen claims the SCOTUS decision "allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns." That statement is utterly false. The decision allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited dollars on political advertising. Restrictions on campaign contributions are still in place.

"The news media have a tremendous potential to shape public opinion. So when they misreport important events, it has significant consequences for public opinion and public policy.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll released today shows that 80 percent of Americans disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United v. FEC decision last month. Perhaps if the Post stopped misleading its readers about the decision as it did today in reporting the poll, public opinion would look differently.

The misinformation begins right in the lede, where reporter Dan Eggen claims the SCOTUS decision "allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns." That statement is utterly false. The decision allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited dollars on political advertising. Restrictions on campaign contributions are still in place.

...Eggen claims that the law under the Citizens United decision permits "unfettered corporate political spending." No it doesn't. It allows unfettered corporate speech.
Maybe if more Americans were informed as to what actually happened--the federal government decreed that a non-profit was no permitted to air political views, otherwise known as censorship--instead of what a couple reporters at the Post think happened, public opinion might be different.

The decision does not allow "unfettered corporate political spending." It allows unfettered corporate speech. Restrictions on contributions remain.

Though the article is an irresponsible and misleading report on the SCOTUS decision, it gives us some insight into why the public is opposed to the decision. Americans have been misled."

Those who oppose it need to actually pick up a fricking copy of the Constitution and read it.

This decision was firmly rooted within the Constitution.

Don't like it - then ammend the document in accordance with the procedure that it sets forth for doing so.

Jeff playing Constitutional Scholar is always fun to watch.

I am sure it is, Monte.

Care to debate me on this one?

JeffJ, while I know many rightwingers, especially those in big business and on the SCOTUS like to view money as speech, it is highly questionable whether the U.S. Constitution really supports that view. Suffice to say, it truly is an area of the law where honest and intelligent minds may differ.

Mod,

In order to run an ad, produce a movie, publish a book, etc. MONEY is a necessity.

The first ammendment makes no differentiation among speakers, it simply prevents the government from prohibiting speech and a little digging of history shows that the founders were mostly concerned about protecting political speech - they really weren't that concerned about protecting one's ability to burn our flag without impugnity.

I am not suggesting that allowing money to reign supreme in terms of speech isn't fraught with problems. The issue at hand though was one of constitutionality and in this regard SCOTUS got it right.

What is the beef about running an ad, movie or book?

The group can do it--they also have to say which group they are.

This poll is a bunch of manure--garbage in garbage out...

I am sure it is, Monte.
...Care to debate me on this one?

#13 | Posted by JeffJ

Looks like a rumble brewing. Could be a classic showdown between the Jets and the Sharks.

Rumble?

I guess Monte was too afraid of "Pony-boy".

This poll is a bunch of manure--garbage in garbage out...

#16 | Posted by MURPHY

Didn't like the results, eh dummy?

It should be considered, though, that unlimited spending for advertising is much more powerful than limited direct contributions (which will probably be used for advertising).

"Left and Right United In Opposition to SCOTUS Decision"

Seems they're united in opposition to the perceived RESULTS or FALLOUT from the decision. Not the decision itself.

All this talk of "corporations aren't people"...I feel it's missing the point altogether.

And I think JeffJ has it right, but then I'm not what you'd call a Constitutional scholar.

Do I like where I think this decision is going to lead?
Not at all.
Do I like the idea of international conglomerates being able to throw as much money as they like toward issue ads?
Slippery slope, that one.
But I don't know of a Constitutional argument against it.

Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but if memory serves, this SCOTUS decision came about after a HRC documentary was made, and was considered by some to be politcal speech, and it became a campaign finance issue.

Is there a sound Constitutional reason to ban this?
If there is, let me know.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll released today shows that 80 percent of Americans disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United v. FEC decision last month. Perhaps if the Post stopped misleading its readers about the decision as it did today in reporting the poll, public opinion would look differently.

The misinformation begins right in the lede, where reporter Dan Eggen claims the SCOTUS decision "allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns." That statement is utterly false. The decision allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited dollars on political advertising. Restrictions on campaign contributions are still in place.

What is an "unlimited" sum? Perhaps corporate donations should never exceed the sum of the individual employee donations? Also, donations can only come from local US corporations and resident US employees registered to vote.

This door was purposefully unhinged. I was by accident.

The decision that allows an already overly influential group of corporate persons to further entrench their financial hold over the political process thus furhter drowning out the long term needs and wants of it's citizenry should be decried by all folk no matter where on the political spectrum one finds themself.

Be Well.

#23 | Posted by dethspud

Decried?

Maybe.

However, the 1st ammendment protects speech and makes no differentiation between speakers.

Again, constitutionally, SCOTUS got this one right.

The original wrong by the court was to hold that a corporation has similar rights to an individual.

Agreed, but that decision is irrelevant to this case.

The 1st Ammendment protects speech without making any differentiation among speakers.

It's truly sad that after decades of flagrant judicial activism a majority in this country have not only come to expect it, but on certain occasions they actually welcome it.

This decision was correct on a constitutional basis.

You can pretend that the authors of the Constitution intended to include corporations as persons with rights but their writings, the laws governing corporations at the time and the lack of any mention whatsoever in the Constitution itself disproves this convenient pretense by the corporate shills who made this unAmerican, undemocratic, disgusting decision. This decision will further corrupt our already corrupted Congress. The CEOs in various foreign nations are cheering as they plan how they will pick and choose which legislators they will target in November.

Read the 1st Ammendment, Danni, and then get back to me as to where it gives government the power to censor speech funded by corporations.

It doesn't.

This was a constitutionally-sound decision. THIS court didn't abuse their powers and ask, "But is it right?"

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

who made this unAmerican, undemocratic, disgusting decision.

I recognize the problems that can potentially result from this, but this decision was firmly rooted in the constitution and it had nothing to do with corporate personhood.

"Read the 1st Ammendment, Danni, and then get back to me as to where it gives government the power to censor speech funded by corporations."

Find the word Corporation in the Constitution and get back to me. The other members of the court, even Sandra Day O'connor agree....this was a terrible decision and not one based on any Constitutional bases. This was simply judicial activism by corporate shills.

Where in the first ammendment does the constitution give our government the power to censor and stifle speech funded by a corporation, Danni?

It doesn't.

Sorry.

this was a terrible decision and not one based on any Constitutional bases. This was simply judicial activism by corporate shills.

You can scream it until you are blue in the face but it doesn't change the reality that the text clearly contradicts your assertion.

This was simply judicial activism by corporate shills.

Quite the contrary - it was a constitutionally-sound opinion; firmly rooted not only in the text itself, but also in the framers' intent which was primarilly concerned with the free and broad expression of political opinion.

Finally, some sanity is returning to the court - one of the few things Bush did well - nominating jurists who understand the constitution.

Danni,

Sandra Day O'Connor was the consumate judicial activist and she fully took advantage of her swing-vote position to "write" law in a manner she saw fit. Just look at her opinion on Affirmative Action as a case-in-point.

To be fair to Sandy, at least she was middle-of-the-road in her activism - neither side can justifiably bitch too much with her opinions. For example, her opinion on AA is actually quite reasonable on its face, she just WAY over-stepped her powers with that opinion - she played both the role of judge AND lawmaker.

You can scream it until you are blue in the face but it doesn't change the reality that the text clearly contradicts your assertion.

My argument is just like yours Jeff, It's my opinion just like yours is your opinion. In that the word corporation doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution you have nothing to base yours on. I can however point to the FACT that corporations were prohibited from participating in political discussion at the time of the writing of the constitution. The intent of the authors is often sited as the bases for SC decisions, well the intent of the authors is well known and it was that corporations were useful entities for specific purposes which needed to be tightly controlled.
The Boston Tea Party was a popular protest against the monompolistic power of the Great East India Tea Company for crying out loud. The corporatists have turned the intent of the founding fathers upside down.

"she played both the role of judge AND lawmaker."

She was joined by the other jusctices of that majority. She didn't act alone. By that measure Justice Kennedy is the biggest activist in history.

"Quite the contrary - it was a constitutionally-sound opinion; firmly rooted not only in the text itself, but also in the framers' intent which was primarilly concerned with the free and broad expression of political opinion."

Not supported at all by the writings of the founding fathers, in fact, it is quite clear that they feared the power of corporations and did not want them to become powerful like the GEITC.

Not supported at all by the writings of the founding fathers, in fact, it is quite clear that they feared the power of corporations and did not want them to become powerful like the GEITC.

In crafting the 1st Ammendment, when it came to free speech, the founders were most concerned with government exercizing power to squelch political expression. On the text alone you can not possibly make the argument that the portions of McCain/Feingold that were struck down weren't blatantly unconstitutional. Couple that with the founders' unanimous concern over government squelching political speech and I can't fathom how you can make your case from a constitutional standpoint. This opinion has nothing to do with the bullshit 'corporate personhood' decision that you already convinced me was just that - bullshit.

You are historically-correct in your assertions regarding the founders' wariness over corporate power. However, they apparently didn't take into account the ramifications of said power when it came to the 1st Ammendment. However, they were prescient enough AND humble enough to recognize their own, personal visionary constraints as well as recognizing that with the passage of time issues would arise that they couldn't have possibly conceived when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified. This is precisely why they created the ammendment process.

Look, I share some of your consternations over the implications of this decision - more corporate influence.

Having said that, this decision IS constitutuionally sound. At this point, the proper course of action is a constitutional ammendment. The process for doing so already exists. If the resultant problem is really that bad, then an ammendment should be viable.

It is NOT the job of SCOTUS to mull the merit of the constituion and various laws and statutes. It is their job to apply these texts as they were written and intended. That is precisely what happened with this decision.

This decision was correct on a constitutional basis.

In terms of abridging free speech?

Sure, that flies.

In terms of corporate campaign contribution including money spent on ad buys being effectively legalized bribery it fails.

The corporate culture dominates in DC these days to the extent where no really effective legislation can be written without it being being killed outright or modified into a weaker loop-hole ridden, neutered, feckless form through corporate lobbying.

Other countries place limits on corporate involvement in elections because the concept of free and fair elections trumps the corporate personhood's claim to unfettered free speech.

Already it is practically impossible to get a nomination in either party without solid backing by wealthy individual donors and corporate sponsors.

With this latest SCOTUS decision the electorate become even more irrelevant to the process than ever.

Do Not Want.

Be Well.

In terms of abridging free speech?

Sure, that flies.

Which is precisely the point of the decision.

The process was followed.

Like KELO, Exxon-Valdez, this ruling is a disgusting betrayal of our founding principals. In a Democracy everyone is supposed to be equal under the law. What we is one dollar=one vote, not one man=one vote.

Other countries place limits on corporate involvement in elections because the concept of free and fair elections trumps the corporate personhood's claim to unfettered free speech.

"Other countries"

Let's hang on that for a moment.

This is America.

We are not 'other countries'.

For better or worse, our Constitution places restrictions on state power - one of the most obvious and blatant restrictions is enshrined in the 1st ammenment - the lack of power of our government to restrict speech, particularly political speech.

For the nth time, this SCOTUS decision is well within the accordance of the constitution - a claim that many prior courts cannot make - Miranda immediately comes to mind.

You are full of shit, Nutcase.

Pick up the Constitution and actually read it.

This decision is constitutionally-sound.

"This decision is constitutionally-sound."

cuz you say so. Ok. We get it Jeff, ignore the historical record and accept a simplistic argument that because something (a corporation) isn't specifically excluded then that means it is automatically included as having rights equal to citizens. Ridiculous. Previous to this decision no citizen was deprived of their right to free speech so your argument is baseless. Who's right to free speech was insured by this decision??? If they already enjoyed the right then what was the purpose other than to grant corporations rights similar to those of citizens which it is clear from hisorical records and the first 100 years of history in the US that this was clearly not the intent of the authors.

end the corporate person.

anything less is a waste of time.

Danni,

My argument is based upon the text itself - yours isn't.

Sorry.

This decision is constitutionally-sound.

Only if one ignores the history of the Corporation at the start of United States.

jeff you are an imbecile.

the corporate person is fascism pure and simple.

allowing those fake entities person reichs is the equivalent of saying that my dog ate my homework.

end the corporate person.

anything less is a waste of time.

isn't specifically excluded then that means it is automatically included as having rights equal to citizens.

The 1st Ammendment restricts the government's ability to censor speech and makes no differentiation among speakers. Your argument is irrelevant to the text itself. I have re-produced the 1st Ammendment on this thread and have highlighted the pertinent text. Thus far, you have ferociously avoided the actual text with ALL of your arguments. I have even gone further and provided some historical background regarding the founders' fearing and thus inhibiting the government's power to stifle speech; political speech in particulary.

At the end of the day the text is on my side and on the side of the justices who wisely opined on this case.

If this is SUCH a problem then ammend the damn document - a process exists for doing so.

Your complaint ultimately isn't with the justices but with the document itself.

end the corporate person.

Agreed, Shawn.

But that isn't the constitutional issue at-hand.

I like how the extent of JeffJ's argument is "pick up a copy of the constitution and read it! This decision is sound!"

No, JeffJ, study a little legal history. Like many longstanding precedents that exist in the jurisprudence of this great nation which in hindsight seem a little odd, this one started with the railroads, back in the mid 1800s.

Up until then, corporations were not considered persons. But they didnt like the fact that congress could make laws specifically attacking and regulating them. Any corporate regulation was an impingement on their freedom of speach. Any direct regulation was a bill of attainder.

Well, finally, after a long and tenuous series of cases, a very very conservative court without any real legal backing (this is effectively the same civil court that indirectly started the civil war by overturning the missouri compromise) stated that corporations are persons. And since then, its been a rather slippery slope.

So yes, JeffJ, you have 150 years of contentious jurisprudence on your side, but that doesn't make it legally sound or obvious. We have just as much jurisprudence on the 14th amendment, and I'm sure you'd love to still claim that it's invalid. And we've had decisions like this that have been turned over in hindsight for being incredibly wrong. The law is a living thing, the constitution is a living document, nothing is ever obvious. Its why we have a surpreme court.

But that isn't the constitutional issue at-hand.

------

bull fucking shit.

your are privating the truth.

the equivalent of claiming that god pulled the trigger.

the constitution is a living document

It "lives" in the sense that it can be ammended.

It does NOT live in the sense that its text and intent is completely at the mercy of a majority of 9 unelected individuals wearing black-robes who sometimes believe they have an unvested power to move beyond the role of referee and simultaneously assume to role of rule-maker.

"My argument is based upon the text itself - yours isn't."

Jeff, your argument is simplistic and ignores history. It also ignores the normal operation of the court which looks beyond the simple words on the document and interprets the intended meaning of the authors, you know that as well as I do. You won't be swayed in your opinion but neither will I so we will have to agree to disagree.

"It does NOT live in the sense that its text and intent is completely at the mercy of a majority of 9 unelected individuals wearing black-robes"

Nonsense. If that were true, we would never have had completely opposite decisions on the same issue.

Where in the first ammendment does the constitution give our government the power to censor and stifle speech funded by a corporation, Danni?

Where does it say an individual can't profit from his crime by writing a book about it? Where does it say CBS can't show a nipple on television?

There are a variety of scenarios in which an absolute right to freedom of speech does not exist. I see no inherent Constitutional crisis in extending that penumbra of regulation to our electoral process. In fact I see markedly good reasons for doing so.

With respect to the Citizen's United decision, can you truly say you agree with this statement from the majority opinion? "The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy."

In reality half the electorate has already lost faith in our democracy, and they show it by not voting.

That being said I don't reject everything about the CU decision. But I don't have a problem with regulating elections either.

Ultimately I think the real problem with our democracy is not corporate money, it's a winner-take-all mentality that causes the breeze to blow from a different direction every four or eight years. Were we a tiny Banana Republic that switched from loving to hating the USA once or twice a decade, we'd surely have seen our democracy toppled and replaced by a puppet dictator by now.

I think a similar thing has already happened in our politics. Corporations only need to buy one party and hedge their bets with the other. Look how pro-big-business Clinton was, even threatening to bring out the National Guard to break the UPS strike (the best labor action in recent memory).

Danni,

Agree to disagee?

Familiar territory for you and I, eh?

:-)

Jeff, do you support the amendment to end corporate personhood?

#55 | Posted by danni

Yes.

You and a couple of others barraged me with history, arguments, logic and constitutionality recently to a point where I couldn't support that century-old decision on any front.

Having said that, I still argue that 'corporate personhood' has no bearing on the 1st Ammendment, not only as it's written, but also in the context of the framers' intent to inhibit government's ability to censor political speech REGARDLESS of the speaker.

Err ... A corporation is an organization of individuals. So you are saying that someone who runs a one person private closely held corporation under a S corporation charter cannot spend proceeds from the business on political speech? How does that not violate the First Amendment?

Everyone is worried about major corporations and are willing to lop off the hundreds of thousands of small businesses that have used the legal protections of the corporation system. The legal system encourages incorporating your business and now you want to take away a fundamental right to those people who listened?

As for Danni's ridiculous assertion that the word "Corporation" is not found in the constitution, I will merely point to the preamble "We the people". It does not say "We the people, unless properly formed as a corporation." Remember that this government derives its power from the governed and unless a power is ceded to the government by the governed, it remains with the people. I realize this is a difficult concept for liberals but it is the premise our Constitution was built upon.

A corporation is an organization of individuals. So you are saying that someone who runs a one person private closely held corporation under a S corporation charter cannot spend proceeds from the business on political speech? How does that not violate the First Amendment?

A collection of individuals who already have rights as individuals. To give a new set of rights to the collection as a whole is to give a second voice to the few who dictate what that collection says and thinks.

I just hope some rightwing justices (5-4) never interpret the Constitution as telling Jeffy to go take a flying leap off of a high cliff.

Obviously, he would do it no matter the consequences.

The decision allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited dollars on political advertising. Restrictions on campaign contributions are still in place.

I guess nobody told this dumbass that advertisement is where 95% of where all campaign contributions go.

The more I listen to the logic of the right wing nuts the more I realize there is absolutely no way a constitutional convention will ever change another law in America. Partisan politics based on hate for the opposition, especially liberal people who seek change, will stick a knife in the peoples back every time.

Sorry Cork, just reading the text as it is AND applying historical context in terms of original intent.

I know - scary shit, judicial restraint and all that. The Constitution is such an inconvenient document when it doesn't support your views.

A collection of individuals who already have rights as individuals. To give a new set of rights to the collection as a whole is to give a second voice to the few who dictate what that collection says and thinks.

#58 | POSTED BY KANREI

Perhaps you overplay your hand. Corporations do not dictate anything. They are permitted to speak as loudly as any other group in the political process. Should we cut off the ACLU, Red Cross, and NAACP? (btw ... they are a non-profit corporations too). Remember that the cure to speech you do not like is more speech, not less.

A collection of individuals who already have rights as individuals. To give a new set of rights to the collection as a whole is to give a second voice to the few who dictate what that collection says and thinks.

#58 | Posted by kanrei...a great point if only the Constitution identified certain 'groups' as 'fair-game' to insulating government from criticism or the general expression of political opinion.

This is simply not the case and the text is clearly on my side.

Corporations do not dictate anything.

I didn't say they did. Re-read what I wrote.

a second voice to the few who dictate what that collection says and thinks.

The Board of Directors does dictate the company plan. The Corporations do not dictate anything.

-just reading the text as it is

There is no "as is", there is almost always interpretation and precedent.

-AND applying historical context in terms of original intent.

The historical context is that there was never actually a ruling that gave corporations person hood.

JeffJ,
To put it in terms anyone can understand:

George Soros has a voice as the individual. He also as a second voice as a company. Not all who work for Soros believe his political views, but they are represented by the corporate George Soros. He gets extra rights as a result.

The History of Corporate Personhood

Corporations were detested by the colonial rebels in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence severed the States from Great Britain. There had been only a few corporations in colonial America, but they had been very powerful. The Dutch West India Company had founded New York. Corporations had effectively governed Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas. The political history of the colonies up until 1776 was largely one of conflict between citizens trying to establish rule by elected government and the corporations or King ruling through appointed governors.

The new nation or confederation of 13 sovereign states had few native business corporations. The corporations that survived the revolution were mainly non-profit institutions such as colleges [Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819)]. There was not a single bank in the United States until 1780. Most of that first bank's stock was owned by the confederate (what we would later call Federal) government, and the bank's charter was revoked in 1785. "The agrarian charges were numerous... the bank was a monstrosity, an artificial creature endowed with powers not possessed by human beings and incompatible with the principles of a democratic social order." [Hammond, Bray , Banks and Politics in America from the Revolution to the Civil War (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), pp. 48-54] By 1790 four banks had been granted corporate charters by states, but these banks were not originally purely private institutions. They served as financial institutions for the states that chartered them. [Ibid. 65-67]

The federal Constitution of 1788 did not mention corporations at all. But in the late 1700's and early 1800's corporations began to be chartered by the states.

This was not without opposition.

Thomas Jefferson said, "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

from the above link, where ther is much more

#64 | POSTED BY KANREI

I stand corrected. Yet my principle point remains.

In 1868 the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution had become law. Section 1 of that Amendment states:

SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

"The one pervading purpose . . . [of the 14th Amendment] was the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppression of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him." That is exactly what Justice Samuel F. Miller said in 1873 in one of the first Supreme Court opinions to rule on the 14th Amendment. [83 U.S. 36, 81 (1873)]

But the wealthy, powerful men who owned corporations wanted more power for their corporations. Their lawyers came up with the idea that corporations, which might be said to be groups of persons (though one person might in turn belong to (own stock in) many corporations), should have the same constitutional rights as persons themselves. If they could get the courts to agree that corporations were persons, they could assert that the States, which had chartered the corporations, would then be constrained by the 14th Amendment from exercising power over the corporations.

Beginning in the 1870's corporate lawyers began asserting that corporations were persons with many of the rights of natural persons. It should be understood that the term "artificial person" was already in long use, with no mistake that corporations were claiming to have the rights of natural persons. "Artificial person" was used because there were certain resemblances, in law, between a natural person and corporations. Both could be parties in a lawsuit; both could be taxed; both could be constrained by law. In fact the corporations had been called artificial persons by courts in England as early as the 16th century because lawyers for the corporations had asserted they could not be convicted under the English laws of the time because the laws were worded "No person shall..."

The need to be freed from legislative and judicial constraints, combined with the use of the word "person" in the U.S. Constitution and the concept of the "artificial person," led to the argument that these "artificial persons" were "persons" with an inconsequential "artificial" adjective appended. If it could be made so, if the courts would accept that corporations were among the "persons" talked about by the U.S. Constitution, then the corporations would gain considerably more leverage against legal restraint.

These arguments were made by corporate lawyers at the State level, in court after court, and many judges, being former corporate attorneys and usually at least moderately wealthy themselves, were sympathetic to any argument that would strengthen corporations. There was a national campaign to get the legal establishment to accept that corporations were persons. This cumulated in the Santa Clara decision of 1886, which has been used as the precedent for all rulings about corporate personhood since then.

Though it is not yet clear who hatched this plan or where the campaign began, the early cases mainly concerned railroads. In the late 1800's railroads were the most powerful corporations in the country. Most of the nation's farmers were dependent on them to haul their produce; even the manufacturing corporations were at their mercy when they needed coal, iron ore, finished iron, or any other materials transported. That the lawyers for the railway corporations had planned a national campaign to make corporations full, unqualified legal persons is demonstrated by the Supreme Court making several decisions in which this was an issue in 1877. In four cases that reached the Supreme Court [94 U.S. 155, 94 U.S. 164, 94 U.S. 179, 94 U.S. 180 (1877)] it was argued by the railroads that they were protected by the 14th Amendment from states regulating the maximum rates they could charge. In each case the Court did not render an opinion as to whether corporations were persons covered by the 14th Amendment. Bypassing that issue, they said that the 14th Amendment was not meant to prevent states from regulating commerce.

Similarly, in 1877, in Munn v. Illinois [94 U.S. 113 (1876)], the Supreme Court decided that the 14th Amendment did not prevent the State of Illinois from regulating charges for use of a business's grain elevators, ignoring the question of whether Munn & Scott was a person. Later, in Northwestern Nat Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs [203 U.S. 243 (1906)], having accepted that corporations are people, the court still ruled that the 14th Amendment was not a bar to many state laws that effectively limited a corporations right to contract business as it pleases.

Calling silence a victory, from 1877 to 1886 corporate lawyers assumed that corporations were persons, and their opponents argued that they were not. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company [118 U.S. 394 (1886)], at the lower court levels the question of whether corporations were persons had been argued, and these arguments were submitted in writing to the Court. However, before oral argument took place, Chief Justice Waite announced: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

It is not half as strange that the Supreme Court judges would render such an opinion, given their allegiance to the propertied class, as the way that they rendered it. These guys loved to write long-winded, complex opinions; look at any Supreme Court opinion of the time (or any time) and you'll see that. This question had never been covered in a Supreme Court decision; it had been avoided. Here was the perfect chance for any of nine Supreme Court judges to make his place in history. All declined. No one wanted to explain how an amendment about ex-slaves had converted artificial entities into the legal equivalent of natural persons.

This opinion without explanation, given before argument had even been heard, became the law of the United States of America. No state or federal legislature passed it or even discussed; no Amendment to the Constitution was deemed necessary; the citizens were simply informed that they had a mistaken view about corporations, if they were informed at all. Future Supreme Courts refused to even consider the question, preferring to build on it, though occasionally future justices would try to raise the question again.

The historical context is that there was never actually a ruling that gave corporations person hood.

Which has NOTHING to do with the constitutional restrictions placed upon the government in terms of restricting free speech; especially political speech.

Let's set aside constitutionality for a moment - what is so bad about this?

Yes, I understand some of the arguments, but said arguments seem to stem from the premise that 'corporations' are monolithic in their interests. Seriously, do producers of ethanol and producers of refined oil have the same interests? A resounding 'No'

How about health-insurance providers and actual providers?

Um...no.

And so forth.

My point being - what is the big problem with these obviously varying 'corporate' opinions being expressed and debated?

Jesus, the 527 exemption allowed for corporate influence to be peddled via stealth.

"Err ... A corporation is an organization of individuals. So you are saying that someone who runs a one person private closely held corporation under a S corporation charter cannot spend proceeds from the business on political speech? How does that not violate the First Amendment?"

A corporation is an entity rightly regulated by the state that grants its charter. Therefore we can regulate the activities of corporations as our legislators see fit, that's how it was when the Constitution was written. It is ludicrous to assert that the authors ever intended for corporations to influence political activity when we have many examples of their dire warnings about exactly that.
This decision is reminiscent of the Clinton defense hinging on the meaning of the word "is" only this time it is a ridiculous claim that the word "people" didn't mean human beings.

I'm going to have to go with Thomas Jefferson on this one, instead JeffersonJ.

"In order to run an ad, produce a movie, publish a book, etc. MONEY is a necessity.

The first ammendment makes no differentiation among speakers, it simply prevents the government from prohibiting speech and a little digging of history shows that the founders were mostly concerned about protecting political speech - they really weren't that concerned about protecting one's ability to burn our flag without impugnity."

I don't agree with this. Corporations don't give money to candidates to get a message across. They could get their message out re: political views on their own. They have plenty of money to use all kinds of media to do so. They give money to politicians with the expectation of favorable legistlation once that politician is elected. Look at how Obama is working with Monsanto for a very sleazy example.

Corporate donations to politicians have nothing to do with free speach.

Polling the public on constitutional issues is like asking a group of sixth graders whether they like math class or not. The answers are necessarily results-oriented only, and are in no way a reflection of whether the decision was correct or not.

The Supreme Court should not be deciding issues based on their preferred outcome, no matter how repugnant that outcome may be. For example, Scalia despises flag-burners but joined the majority in finding that their conduct is protected by the First Amendment.

I'm sure if you polled the public after Loving v. Virginia, a similar majority would have said they don't approve of the court's decision to allow interracial marriages. The public was wrong on that issue because they have no clue about the Constitution. They are wrong here too.

They say one of the most pronounced effects of this decision may be on elected judges, who will be told by corporations that their opponent will be heavily financed unless their rulings run a certain way.

Not, I think, one of the Founders intentions.

The first ammendment makes no differentiation among speakers

Then on what basis are foreign interests barred from spending money on political ads?

Supposedly that restriction is left standing by this ruling, but I don't see how it could survive a Constitutional challenge based on the majority's reasoning (or yours) behind the CU decision.

Remember that this government derives its power from the governed and unless a power is ceded to the government by the governed, it remains with the people. I realize this is a difficult concept for liberals but it is the premise our Constitution was built upon.

Remember that the cure to speech you do not like is more speech, not less.

LOL while what you say is all good and noble in theory, in practice it's not really palpable.

Yeah, corporations with opposing interests may speak out in favor of the opposing candidate, but all this does in effect is line corporations up in battle lines to choose who wins.

Meanwhile the people are for the most part left by the wayside.

Corporate donations to politicians have nothing to do with free speach.

Sure they do. In the abstract, the giving of money to a candidate by a corporation indicates that the corporation thinks that candidate is the best person to stand up for their interests. Corporations have legitimate interests just like every other person in America.

They give money to politicians with the expectation of favorable legistlation once that politician is elected.

Which is the real problem. Make it illegal for any politician to propose, sponsor or vote on any bill that will directly benefit any person or corporation who has given them money, and the problem will go away. This is the true way to address the problem without running into First Amendment problems. Politicians won't take this route because it would ruin their game - so they pass laws like the one struck down in Citizens United, so they can pretend they care about campaign finance reform.

The Supreme Court should not be deciding issues based on their preferred outcome, no matter how repugnant that outcome may be.

And yet their vote in Bush v. Gore went right down party lines. Oh well.

I see supporters of this decision want to conveniently leave out the debate on corporate personhood when it's absolutely central to the debate.

As was so nicely stated above, the Constitution starts with "We, the People..." Without standing as an individual with rights, a corporation is not subject to Constitutional protections as We the People are. Individuals within the corporation ARE covered and in no way was their free speech impinged before this ruling.

However, as has been already said, this decision creates a new, privileged class who have multiple avenues of "free speech," some of which are for all intents and purposes unlimited in scope and ability relative to your average person's.

And yet their vote in Bush v. Gore went right down party lines. Oh well.

How did I know some idiot lefty would bring up Bush v. Gore? The equal protection issues in that case were decided 7-2. The separate 5-4 decision did not end the case, but Gore didn't like his chances on remand so he dropped it.

Regardless, I didn't say that the court doesn't decide issues based on their outcome. I said that they shouldn't. And just because you think they did so in Bush v. Gore does not mean that they should continue to do so when it will be to your benefit.

In the abstract, the giving of money to a candidate by a corporation indicates that the corporation's big whigs thinks that candidate is the best person to stand up for their interests. Corporation's big whigs have legitimate interests just like every other person in America.

And now they have more influence and power than the rest of us.

Make it illegal for any politician to propose, sponsor or vote on any bill that will directly benefit any person or corporation who has given them money, and the problem will go away.

Sure, let's allow those who are profiting off the broken system fix the broken system.

You acknowledge that this won't work yet you think it's the way to get it done?

That doesn't make any sense.

Without standing as an individual with rights, a corporation is not subject to Constitutional protections as We the People are.

Centuries of supreme court jurisprudence disagree with you.

Sure, let's allow those who are profiting off the broken system fix the broken system.

They are the only ones who have a right to change the law. The supreme court does not have a right to make new law - they have the power to tell you that a law violates the Constitution.

Other than hyperpartisan rightwingers who initially supported the decision, pretty much everyone who now actually understands the effects of the ruling opposes it.

#1 | Posted by moder8

Why don't you know that these are neocons? Most of Congress are neocons.

Neocon is a loose term used for all Republicans, but many Democrats behave the same way.

Yes, most Americans think that this runing is really dangerous.

NOW! It's time for this Democrat-led Congress to do something about it!!!

Do something good for America!!! GEEZ!!!!

Centuries of supreme court jurisprudence disagree with you.

So before the slip up giving corporations personhood, they were treated as and given the same rights as individuals?

They are the only ones who have a right to change the law. The supreme court does not have a right to make new law - they have the power to tell you that a law violates the Constitution.

I understand that and therefore understand the conundrum of expecting Congress to fix the broken system.

I just thought it was funny you push for the fix while acknowledging it will never happen.

Regardless, I didn't say that the court doesn't decide issues based on their outcome. I said that they shouldn't. And just because you think they did so in Bush v. Gore does not mean that they should continue to do so when it will be to your benefit.

Hey, I don't disagree. In fact you've just explained why I vote liberal.

There's so much contradictory precedent now, so many split circuits, there is ample basis to justify any opinion the Court trots out. It's like Bible-thumpers using the Bible as proof of the existence of G-d.

"NOW! It's time for this Democrat-led Congress to do something about it!!!"

I think we should all admit that Democrats cannot do it alone.

i think people should realize that the democrats are just as bought.

I don't like the decision later, but a poll of the people has nothing to do with it.

Suppose 99% of the people want to outlaw the Hare Krisha religion and passed a law doing so. It would be the duty of the Supreme Court, when the matter comes before it, to strike down that law on 1st Amendment grounds.

Schools and the legal profession have been remiss in not educating our kids and the rest of the public to understand that the Bill of Rights is a minority document. The majority on a particular issue do not need its protection since they have the votes on their side anyway. The Bill of Rights is there to protect the minority from the majority.

Consequently, a poll of the people has absolutely nothing to do with a decision of the Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds.

Worst activist Supreme Court ruling ever.

"Consequently, a poll of the people has absolutely nothing to do with a decision of the Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds."

True but it does have a lot to do with passing an amendment to overturn this disgusting decision.

So SCOTUS is in accordance of the constitution when you agree with them and not when you don't. Ok, I see. Who the hell are you, again? Did you miss the part about the constitution never referring to corporations as being "persons" in the first place?

"Sure they do. In the abstract, the giving of money to a candidate by a corporation indicates that the corporation thinks that candidate is the best person to stand up for their interests."

OK, in reality they are buying favors and this can be demonstrated. Why should the Supreme Court make this a free speach issue based on the abstract when reality demonstrates that otherwise?

"Corporations have legitimate interests just like every other person in America."

Yeah, they're not people. The people who work for or own stock in corporations can make donations. That's a point I missed the first time. By barring corporations from making these donations, not one PERSON is deprived of anything. The Constitution protects the rights of people.

"Make it illegal for any politician to propose, sponsor or vote on any bill that will directly benefit any person or corporation who has given them money, and the problem will go away. This is the true way to address the problem without running into First Amendment problems."

I don't disagree that this would be a good idea but I'm don't think there are first ammendment problems with barring corporations from throwing their money at politicians.

Other than hyperpartisan rightwingers who initially supported the decision, pretty much everyone who now actually understands the effects of the ruling opposes it.

#1 | Posted by moder8 at 2010-02-17 05:17 PM

Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, everyone hates the ruling.

"i think people should realize that the democrats are just as bought."

My own very scientific survey has found Democrats are only 74% as bought as are Republicans.

I believe a woman should be allowed to abort her corporation, but only before the third trimester.

I don't disagree that this would be a good idea but I'm don't think there are first ammendment problems with barring corporations from throwing their money at politicians.

I'd recommend reading the court opinion. There is a historical and precedential basis for according free speech rights to corporations, and for treating the spending of money as speech.

There is nothing wrong with spending money. What harms our nation is what politicians do in return. Corporations will find ways around any law restricting their donations. Cut them off at the source by making it illegal to pay them back.

Miranda immediately comes to mind.
#49 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2010-02-18 09:52 AM | REPLY | FLAG which was one stupid fucking decision.

A group of people gather together to run a business.

Are they a:

Partnership
Corporation
Association
Council
Gang
Congress
Foundation

?

How many people do you need to create a corporation?

The Constitution doesn't mention corporation. It doesn't mention partnerships either. How about homeowner associations?

"I'd recommend reading the court opinion. There is a historical and precedential basis for according free speech rights to corporations, and for treating the spending of money as speech."

I'll take your word on the precedents. I really don't see how a logical arguement can be made that anyone is denied free speach rights if corporations can't donate to politicians. Anyone involved with a corporation has the same rights to donate privately as the rest of us. Nobody is being deprived of their rights by such a ban. So if the foundation of this decision is precedent, then the precedents must be flawed decisions as well. I know that might sound arrogant but any series of events that led to a decision equating a corporate entity's ability to influence our politicians with cash with a person's right to free speach was fucked up along the way somewhere.

"There is nothing wrong with spending money. What harms our nation is what politicians do in return. Corporations will find ways around any law restricting their donations. Cut them off at the source by making it illegal to pay them back."

The problem with that is you then have to prove that a politician is championing a certain piece of legistlation specifically to help a contributor in each case there is a violation in order for the law to work. At this point, I would just ammend the Constitution and impose severe penalties (up to execution for treason if it were up to me) for anyone who is caught violating. I just feel that its easier to track a money trail than it is to prove someone's intent.

The solution is obvious but would have to come from the Congress. Every penny must be accurately accounted for as to donors or it is a felony charge against the candidate and campaign treasurer. That means donations from anonymous gift cards and Chinese dishwashers would have to be refused.
Sound harsh? Some of them wanted citizens charged if they did not purchase health insurance! Time for the elected to face the same "government."

I really don't see how a logical arguement can be made that anyone is denied free speach rights if corporations can't donate to politicians. Anyone involved with a corporation has the same rights to donate privately as the rest of us.

True. But someone's personal interests might not be the same as the interests of their corporation (which is not to suggest that someone would have conflicting interests with their own corporation, just different interests). Since it has long been held that corporations, as contributors to society, have the same free speech rights as people, these rights extend to how they choose to spend their money.

You get to talk with your dollar. Why doesn't Jim's Plumbing, LLC get to talk with it's dollar? Let Jim talk with his own, you say - except Jim's Plumbing is a separate entity with additional interests to protect and pursue.

The problem with that is you then have to prove that a politician is championing a certain piece of legistlation specifically to help a contributor in each case there is a violation in order for the law to work.

No you don't. The law could be worded in a way to forbid any politician from proposing or voting on any legislation that happens to benefit anyone who gave them money - without regard to a test on whether they intend that it do so.

"No you don't. The law could be worded in a way to forbid any politician from proposing or voting on any legislation that happens to benefit anyone who gave them money - without regard to a test on whether they intend that it do so."

And then the Supreme Court comes around and calls the law unconstitutional because the law is intending to stop corporations from exercising their "free speach rights".

I don't think they could. The law does not intend to restrict their speech - they can speak and spend as much as they want. The law would only forbid the unethical conduct performed by politicians.

You get to talk with your dollar. Why doesn't Jim's Plumbing, LLC get to talk with it's dollar?

Should a TV station have to run commercials for candidates the parent corporation doesn't like?

That is surely not the purpose of the First Amendment, to be made to speak words the speaker does not wish to.

Your question has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. Feel free to chime in when you have something relevant to say.

Well if this is a First Amendment issue, why don't TV stations have First Amendment rights? Instead they're forced to accept advertising dollars in exchange for broadcasting speech they may disagree with.

My point is we regulate speech surrounding elections, First Amendment notwithstanding. I think the Court's decision yields more questions than answers about what sorts of regulation will survive scrutiny in the future.

#121 First Amendment rights can only be violated by state action. Who's forcing them to accept any kind of advertising?

Read the 1st Ammendment, Danni, and then get back to me as to where it gives government the power to censor speech funded by corporations.
It doesn't.
This was a constitutionally-sound decision. THIS court didn't abuse their powers and ask, "But is it right?"
#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-02-18 07:56 AM

And this is the problem - knowingly instituting systemic "evaluation" that fails to uphold "justice" is considered the standard-bearer of the best legal precedent. No process can prove a corporate "entity" exists as an entity. It does not posses the right to bargain or trade assets. As a collusion of responsible humans the various investors, shareholders and management strata are acting on behalf of the corporation.

I would seriously question the rights of corporations to spend any money whatsoever. That privilege is only bestowed upon citizens with whom the trust of dollar value has been pledged to God. Unless the corporation is a spiritual being I highly doubt it comprehends what that promise might entail, other than kinship with the corporation that prints Gods promise money (at interest). An office building or warehouse doesn't require a value menu - the human workforce does. The parent genetics of chairmen doesn't honestly extend into the inanimate corpbot (Romney being the exception), so they don't ever need to plan for their corporation's congenital or "pre-existing" lack of a body, however their workers most certainly do have pre-existing conditions (included with each body). The executive parasites are not inside of John Malkovich or a test-tube Navi, however the actions that they make individually are their responsibility collectively. Sloughing off their collective greed and anti-American actions as a "corporate entity's right" only makes it apparent how corporations behave unlike any citizen.

This SCOTUS decision demeans the rights that actual entities possess.

My own very scientific survey has found Democrats are only 74% as bought as are Republicans.

----------

i want to see this motherfucker.

it shouldn't be a 1st amendment issue because corporations aren't people.

a legal fiction that is fascism.

end the corporate person.

anything less is a waste of time.

also interesting to note is that free speech is never brought up over fascist government enforcement of corporate patents and copyrights.

for obviously having the policia come to your door and beat the shit out of you for the political offense of choosing to copy should be a first amendment issue as well.

end the corporate person.

end the litigious fucking society that forces me to codify the fruits of my labor into a "corporation".

dumbshit.

127 = clueless, stupid, and irrelevant.

"end the litigious fucking society that forces me to codify the fruits of my labor into a "corporation"."

Go live in Sudan, very few law suits there, low taxes, you'll love it.

"end the litigious fucking society that forces me to codify the fruits of my labor into a "corporation"."

Go live in Sudan, very few law suits there, low taxes, you'll love it.
#129 | Posted by danni

If Jackie Meeeow's serious about wanting to absent itself from a "fucking society that forces me to codify the fruits of my labor into a 'corporation'," I've got a line on a cute little fixer-upper in Mogadishu, smack dab where Via Washington, Via Mecca, and Via Morocco come together in what local wags dub the Bermuda Triangle. The tin roof keeps the place warm in winter while the flapping tarpaper walls let the breeze waft in from the Indian Ocean after kissing the slurry pond back of the abandoned fish processing plant. The only noise comes from the occasional technical rumbling by as its ghat-addled pre-teen passenger playfully cuts loose with the 50-caliber machine gun bolted to the rusted out bed of the truck or, on occasion, an alarmed camel protesting its role as the main course at the neighborhood block party.

Don't worry, it was prophesied to happen, you couldn't stop it with two bulldozers blocking the highway...

We know the country will become totally corrupt at the very end of the world and then the plagues hit.

Amos 5:7
Ye who turn JUDGMENT to wormwood, and leave off righteousness in the earth...

Amos 6:12
for ye have turned JUDGMENT into gall, and the fruit of righteousness into hemlock:

Micah 3:8
But truly I am full of power by the spirit of the LORD,...to declare ... to Israel his sin.

Micah 3:9
Hear this, I pray you ... that abhor JUDGMENT, and pervert all equity.

Habakkuk 1:4
Therefore the law is slacked, and JUDGMENT doth never go forth: for the wicked doth compass about the righteous; therefore wrong JUDGMENT proceedeth.

Habakkuk 1:7
They [are] terrible and dreadful: their JUDGMENT and their dignity shall proceed of themselves.

131 -- jump for jesus... off the grand canyon.

"I don't think they could. The law does not intend to restrict their speech - they can speak and spend as much as they want. The law would only forbid the unethical conduct performed by politicians."

If you write the law in such a way that says a politician who takes money froma corporation can't do anything to benefit that corporation - whether that is the intent or not - then you're basically penalizing corporations for donating. If as a corp you donate to a politician, then he needs to go out of his way to make sure nothing he does benefits you in any way where if you kept your money to yourself he might have done something that helps you for reasons that have nothing to do with the corporation. And since the SCOTUS has decided that donating money is a free speach right enjoyed by corporations, such a law would be seen as targetting free speach rights.

Now that the SCOTUS has fucked this up so bad, the Constitution needs to be ammended in order to make sure they don't keep fucking up.

Well if this is a First Amendment issue, why don't TV stations have First Amendment rights? Instead they're forced to accept advertising dollars in exchange for broadcasting speech they may disagree with.

TV stations have First Amendment rights - whatever corporate entity they operate under can donate just like any other corporation. They also aren't "forced" to accept advertising dollars from anyone, and can turn down any ad they feel like turning down.

If you write the law in such a way that says a politician who takes money froma corporation can't do anything to benefit that corporation - whether that is the intent or not - then you're basically penalizing corporations for donating.

No you aren't. You're penalizing politicians for giving something back.

such a law would be seen as targetting free speach rights.

No it wouldn't. It would be seen as targeting unethical "quid pro quo." It in no way stops the speech. It stops what would be an illegal reaction to that speech.

"If Jackie Meeeow's serious about wanting to absent itself from a "fucking society that forces me to codify the fruits of my labor into a 'corporation'," I've got a line on a cute little fixer-upper in Mogadishu, smack dab where Via Washington, Via Mecca, and Via Morocco come "

That won't be a problem for Jacque Mao. The trustfund ranchboy will make sure to inherit some property--probably stolen from the natives--for him to multiply the fruits of his labor or whatever.

127 = clueless, stupid, and irrelevant.

#128 | POSTED BY SHAWN AT 2010-02-19 07:54 AM | REPLY | FLAG you fucking people have no clue, no capital, and no idea what it is to run a business or get investment funding for one.

"No it wouldn't. It would be seen as targeting unethical "quid pro quo." It in no way stops the speech. It stops what would be an illegal reaction to that speech."

It stops the politician from doing anything that benefits a specific corporation - even if it is an indirect consequence of the policy that politician is supporting. The politician is obligated to go out of his way not only to avoid "quid pro quo" but to avoid unintentional consequences that may benefit the corporation. That's a pretty serious consequence for the corporation. For what reason? Because that corporation exercised its rights to "free speech". So once you exercise your right to free speech, your congressman stops representing your interests and goes out his way to make sure he nothng he does will ever help you - which is a negative consequence - or punishment - even if the intent isn't to punish the corporation.

It would be tossed.

"It would be tossed."

Fine. I wrote it in ten seconds. Elect me to office and I'll have more time to come up with a constitutional version.

"Fine. I wrote it in ten seconds. Elect me to office and I'll have more time to come up with a constitutional version."

LOL. I disagree with you on how best to address the issue but point taken that it is a bit unfair to pick apart your general idea as if it were a piece of legistlation. I was just thinking: These corporations have alot of money and they've already won in front of the Supreme Court a few times. So if we just passed a law to block them from doing what they want they will run it all the way up to the top again and probably win. Of course I could be wrong and I wouldn't presume to know more about legal issues than you do.

I just think there has to be a better way to criminalize the quid pro quo we see every day with a Congress (and local legislatures) full of scumbags. Currently, when a prosecutor wants to indict an elected official for a "pay to play" scheme, their only option is some bizarre rendition of a fraud claim for "depriving your employer of honest services." If we made a point to specifically criminalize the act that we all know is wrong, corporate donations wouldn't be a problem anymore.

i do know somecoco. look at all the bankruptcies...