A landmark ruling was handed down by the U. S. Supreme Court today:
Overturning a century-old restriction, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as much as they want to sway voters in federal elections.
In a landmark 5-4 decision, the court’s conservative bloc said corporations have the same right to free speech as individuals and, for that reason, the government may not stop corporations from spending to help their favored candidates.
And therein lies the problem — the danger, really — of this decision: “corporate personhood.” It’s this notion that corporations, because they have legal “personhood,” therefore have the same constitutional rights as living, breathing persons. Count me among those who think this idea of corporate personhood has gone too far.
I would encourage you to read Justice Stevens’ dissent to the ruling–I know it’s full of a bunch of legalese, but at least read the sections titled “Identity-Based Distinctions” and “Our First Amendment Tradition.” I’ll let you read his supporting documentation in his dissent, but here’s his conclusion:
The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.
There’s already a movement afoot to amend the constitution to make it clear that the rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are for human beings, not soulless corporations.
I think there is often a serious disconnect between what a CEO states is ‘their’ position as corporate representative and what their employees or even stockholders may feel. Corporations are different from entities like the NRA. People join the NRA to express a particular viewpoint. People take jobs to collect a pay check. I take umbrage at the notion that some supervisor of mine presumes to speak for me politically, and then gets to tap the corporate coffers to sell ‘our’ position. That is money that could be better spent on reinvestment, stockholder value, or employee compensation.
If the CEO wants to speak individually, we all knowing that he is a CEO and has a special viewpoint that is worth hearing, I have no problem with that. If he wants to spend part of his millions of compensation on political influence, fine. But that corporate pot of money…. that belongs to the stockholders.
**cough**
**motions him to put it back**
“The Press” is not a corporation.
David… what corporations existed when the first amendment was written? NOT ONE.
The press, referred to in the Constitutional Amendment is the public (the people) and its right to print information. It is a metaphor for everyone who wished to print anything. It does not specifically mean commercial enterprises like The New York Times.
Corporations have NO rights except those granted by the PUBLIC (or more accurately by the State acting for the public’s interest). People have rights “endowed by their creator” and recognized by the State.
If you do not understand that rather subtle difference, we are offering courses in American History, Civics and The Constitution every semester at ICC.
It really would be enlightening to look at how the corporations became what they are today through some rather dubious legal wrangling based on the anti-slavery Amendments. Don’t worry, it won’t hurt.
“what corporations existed when the first amendment was written?”
East India Trading Company was formed in 1601. Are you suggesting that 5 Supreme Court justices should also take some courses at ICC, too? 🙂
I don’t agree with the Court’s decision, but I understand it.
That was a British “chartered company”. The United States had no corporations. It wasn’t until the 18 hundreds that these “chartered companies” became what we know as corporations…
“In the United States, government chartering began to fall out of vogue in the mid-1800s. Corporate law at the time was focused on protection of the public interest, and not on the interests of corporate shareholders. Corporate charters were closely regulated by the states. Forming a corporation usually required an act of legislature. Investors generally had to be given an equal say in corporate governance, and corporations were required to comply with the purposes expressed in their charters. Many private firms in the 19th century avoided the corporate model for these reasons (Andrew Carnegie formed his steel operation as a limited partnership, and John D. Rockefeller set up Standard Oil as a trust). Eventually, state governments began to realize the greater corporate registration revenues available by providing more permissive corporate laws. New Jersey was the first state to adopt an “enabling” corporate law, with the goal of attracting more business to the state.[11] Delaware followed, and soon became known as the most corporation-friendly state in the country after New Jersey raised taxes on the corporations, driving them out. New Jersey reduced these taxes after this mistake was realized, but by then it was too late; even today, most major public corporations are set up under Delaware law.”
It was through the “Incorporation”, the literal making of these companies into LEGAL PERSONS based upon the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.
As usual, we often say one thing when we really mean something else… “chartered companies” have received special permission from the government to conduct specific businesses that are to the benefit of the public.
Can you tell me the benefit to the public of the incorporation of businesses today?
I have a question. Is it legal for a group of like minded United States citizens to incorporate for the sole purpose of buying advertisements (television, internet, radio, newspapers and magazines) to promote their political beliefs and candidates that follow their beliefs? The monies for said advertisements being their own personal funds.
You can incorporate for any reason you want. All you have to do is pay the legal fees and let the government know that you need a corporate tax number. It costs anywhere between a couple hundred and a couple thousand depending on the state etc.
DPJ says, “You’ve taken the union side of the free trade debate…. But have you fairly characterized the position of corporate America? They might disagree, and that’s why they should have a right to advocate their political positions.”
You asked for an example of a “company’s position differing from some of their employees,” and I gave you one. Which side of the debate I take is immaterial.
As for whether corporations “should have a right to advocate their political positions,” this implies an all-or-nothing case. The case before the Supreme Court was not over an outright ban. As Justice Stevens explained:
Once again we need to differentiate between real persons and artificial persons. Real people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Corporations–artificial “persons”–are not created by God or endowed with unalienable rights. Whatever rights they have are granted to them by the state. The state can and should regulate a corporation to ensure they are operating in the public interest, and that includes regulating a corporation’s electioneering.
GenY says:
11bravo already made this argument, and I already responded in an earlier comment.
GenY continues: “What the Supreme Court did was say that everyone has the right to get their opinions out there, whether they are rich or poor.”
Yes, the poor can finally use all that money in their corporate treasuries to influence elections. [/sarcasm]
GenY then asks: “what is wrong with corporations making statements? What do they not have the right to say? Why must they be silent? Why are they dangerous when they speak?”
Nobody is saying they have to “be silent.” We’re talking about reasonable restrictions on electioneering for reasons already stated and restated several times on this thread.
You’ve probably read this, right? What do you think of his explanation or response?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/us/politics/04scotus.html?hp