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.
The U. S. Supreme Court has just managed to do what the great armies of Britain, Germany, Japan and Russia could not; initiate the coup de grâce to American’s suffering two party democracy. Chief Justice Roberts and his fellow assassins hold no less than the responsibility to the highest crime committed against these United States in modern times. Welcome to the true age of these United corporations Of America…
Corporations, corporations, corporations.
The ruling also applies to UNIONS — the other messianic/satanic anthropomorphic entity in the universe that seeks godhood.
The US Federal Government is largest corporation in the world.
Labor Unions are corporations.
Campaign Organizations are corporations.
Churches are corporations.
Schools Districts are corporations.
A single person who incorporates is a corporation.
Corporation law and corporation function has changed dramatically in the last 200 years. What the founders were primarily concerned about were the centrally controlled banks which had the ability to leverage government to tax the people and/or bestow particular privilege to a corporation to whom the bank had an interest.
The benefit of this ruling is that it recognizes the bright light of “disclosure” as being the disinfectant to counter the rot of corruption. And today’s technology allows the small citizen with an anonymous blog to propagate the smallest disclosure.
The Scott Brown victory is an example of how no matter how much money is spent by large corporations (in MA that would be unions and the Democratic Machine) when there are clear issues and candidates clearly on one side or the other, the viral nature of one-to-one politics will trump any amount of money. I think this also applied to the Christie victory over Corzine in NJ.
Further, I don’t know that the founders could have predicted the growth in size, population or technology and the nationalizing of elections. Note that they founded a Republic, not a direct Democracy and would have been aghast at the sheer volume of legislation not to mention the length and complexity of such which cannot even be read into the Congressional Record.
At any rate, this is hypothesis, because the issues, technology and forms of media at the grass roots level are going to change even faster than government and large corporations can spend their billions.
Theh right to walk into a polling booth and pull a lever still resides with a human who is 18 years of age or older and is a resident of the jurisdiction/ precinct and can sign a ballot request.
CJ:
You say that:
to make it clear that the rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are for human beings, not soulless corporations.
Well…….my Corporation has one person. Namely myself. Are you saying I should have no rights to voice my political beliefs when speaking in my corporate identity?
If you believe I can do so in the one man corporation and that is acceptable, then I fail to see the distinction should I have another 10,000 employees. The views and needs of my corporation should have a way to be expressed
I think this decision opens up corporate influence in a way that has not been seen by any of us in our lifetimes. Whatever hopes and promises the Obama administrated presented almost assuredly died with this decision; more so than Brown’s election. Unless this decision is constitutionally or legislatively amended somehow, I can’t see how Obama could win reelection 2012. This will certainly change the 2010 election in a big way, but for the most part the candidates are already chosen. The 2012 election will bring forth those corporate representatives in a much bigger way.
I would not be surprised if the banks are now reevaluating their bonus plans. Would they sharply reduce their payouts this year in order to mollify the public in the short run, only to move that money to political influence? Attacking anyone who would suggest they be further regulated or restricted? There are billions of dollars on the table here.
This ia a dangerous precedent set by nothing more than an activist SCOTUS.
If I can afford to give my Congressional candidate $100 and a corporation can afford to give them $1 mil, who do you think they are going to listen to?
Congress for decades has been bought and paid for my corporate interests and Wall St. It’s only going to get worse now.
“my Corporation has one person. Namely myself. Are you saying I should have no rights to voice my political beliefs when speaking in my corporate identity?”
I would say no you should not. You do however have the right to speak individually as a person. Obviously at the one man corporate level that is just a matter of semantics. With a corporation of 10,000 employees and a warchest of billions of dollars, that distinction becomes a bit more important.
“The right to walk into a polling booth and pull a lever still resides with a human who is 18 years of age or older and is a resident of the jurisdiction/ precinct and can sign a ballot request.”
That can be amended if it poses problems for corporations.
If corporations have ‘personhood’, then don’t they too have the right to vote?
Remember… what is good for Goldman-Sachs is good for America.
It’s unfortunate that this is being seen in a partisan way. It’s a bad decision regardless of party affiliation.
“s” asks, “Are you saying I should have no rights to voice my political beliefs when speaking in my corporate identity?”
I’m saying your corporate identity should not have the constitutional protection you have as an individual. As Justice Stevens explained, “corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their ‘personhood’ often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.”
Of course, your speech as a person should always be, and is, free and protected.
It has been said:
“Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure,…..”
I would say then if I had 10,000 plus employees in my corporation whom must be paid every Friday and great harm would come to thousand of familys should I not pay them. Would not the “opinion” of the corporation deserve a greater hearing and weight than any single individual. I believe my opinon as a peson should carry less wieght than my opionion as a buisness leader who is (presumably) highly trained and educated in the topic related to the given corporation.
Many janitors at the corporation could outvote the CEO. Shouldn’t the CEO be able to scream at the top of his lungs about the errors of the Janitors thinking as they carry him out the door?
The problem before this ruling was unions had no regulations over the money they could spend. They have thrown millions upon billions of their members dues supporting political candidates over theyears, instead of doing what is good for the membership.
Thomas Hartman has written a brilliant book on this topic: UNEQUAL PROTECTION: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights.
http://www.thomhartmann.com/2007/11/08/unequal-protection/
I made this claim before and been laughed at, but corporations are the biggest threat to us, the people of this country. They have no legal responsibility, the human beings making the decisions for the corporations have no responsibility, and in fact, have nearly unlimited immunity to act “for the corporation” and be totally un-responsible for any action they take. The only responsibility corporations have is financial… they steal billions and pay a million dollar fine… what a country!!!!
Required under penalty of law to buy health insurance?????
Required to pay taxes on income derived from labor when the Supreme Court has ruled that income tax can only be levied on PROFITS gained from corporate activity????? (Wages are a even exchange for Labor… no profit or gain involved.)
Required to sign a W-2 agreeing to pay an illegal income tax (therefor effectively over-riding the taxes illegality) before you can take employment from a corporation ???? (See how it works? You are paying the corporation’s taxes for them.)
Sorry this off topic, but come on, let’s at least try to be accurate.
Chase:
“The Scott Brown victory is an example of how no matter how much money is spent by large corporations (in MA that would be unions and the Democratic Machine) when there are clear issues and candidates clearly on one side or the other, the viral nature of one-to-one politics will trump any amount of money. I think this also applied to the Christie victory over Corzine in NJ.”
Are you kidding? The US Chamber of Commerce, alone, spent over a million dollars on Brown’s campaign. Brown was pulling in over a million day during the final week of the campaign… long after it was “spendable”.
What “issue” did Brown run on… “I am not a Republican, or a Democrat, but an Independent”?
http://www.brownforussenate.com/issues
There are his position statements… he says nothing, except he likes Apple Pie and kissing little babies.
This election was bought and sold by corporate interests just like all of them are… your vote is meaningless.
The solution here is not to limit the rights of corporations, it’s to limit the scope of government. I can tell you that if Congress wouldn’t pass down regulations that make big business easier and hurt smaller competitors, and put special rules in for this big company and that big company, and spend billions on other unconstitutional activities corporations would stop spending money on campaigns.
And as always, the voter is to blame. When we start voting for people who can’t win because they don’t have enough money we’ll find that we can vote in and keep in principled statesmen instead of what we’ve got.
So Congress gets to do what they want, and then limit the rights of those their taxing to do what they want. I side with Justice Roberts on this one. I’m not arguing for more corporate money–I’m arguing that voters need to stop being swayed by it when it’s spent.
Mr. lansberry has got it right!
I say eliminate money from the election by eliminating all radio and TV advertising.
Should I not be choosing my candidate by READING his postions instead of choosing from a TV spot showing the handsome man or woman in question in a polished 60 second comerical? These commercials tend to have images of candidates standing in front of wind blown flags and doing home spun activities to identify with the common man. What facts that are in the 10 second sound bites are questionable at best.
Let the readers decide which candidates deserve appointment from facts and lets starve the TV watchers of their imagery and soundbites
In 2006, USA Today reported: “Nearly one in five U.S. oil refineries is owned by foreign companies. Foreign companies also have a sizable presence in running power plants, chemical factories and water treatment facilities in the United States.” It was also reported that, “Roads and bridges built by U.S. taxpayers are starting to be sold off, and so far foreign-owned companies are doing the buying.”
Does this mean that foreign entities can now buy our elections?
To be clear, S, I’m not saying eliminate the advertising. I’m saying that the electorate needs to learn to ignore the glitz and look for the substance, and even, dare I say, vote for the candidates with the least money and ads because they’re going to be less beholding to special interests.
Foreign corporations have always been able to influence voting in the U.S.A. same as our corporations and government have influenced voting in very many foreign countries.
The major problem facing this country is the massive expansion of the public sector.
Previously posted ….If corporations have ‘personhood’, then don’t they too have the right to vote?
The ability of a brick and mortar structue to move to a booth and pull a lever can not be authorized by legislation, nor can a proxy be appointed to do the task ( one human registered voter cannot pull the levers twice. Besides representatives as of now have to be sent back for sucessive sessions of the House and Senate to vote on any prospective amendment to current law. ( don’t vote for some candidate that believes you can allow a corporation or union to vote by any means possible)
Previously posted by S …Should I not be choosing my candidate by READING his postions instead of choosing from a TV spot.. In preventing a candidate from using his or her own funds to execise free speech you fall into the same SC Decision that the post was based upon. You would, by making only printed material the norm and standard of communication, give more influence to news papers and paper media outlets such as magazines and brochure printing concerns. How about Internet communications? Who would police that?
Lanberry: Why does a corporation have ANY rights???? It is a business.
“the voter is to blame” oh yeah… billions of dollars being spent to confuse and disinform the electorate, and it is the voter’s fault… BRILLIANT!
If I lie to you and get all my partners to lie to you, and pay all my competitors to lie you… and you believe the lie, it is your fault… I LIKE IT! GOD BLESS AMERICA and freedom of speech!
“I’m saying that the electorate needs to learn ”
From our public education system???? From our media???? Who do you think are you kidding?
The US Supreme Court made a good decision. Either everyone including corporations, unions, non-profits, etc. must be allowed equal freedom to engage in political advocacy and criticism, or none at all.
The hatred toward corporations on this blog post is sickening. No wonder many of them say “Goodbye America, hello China.”
DPJ said:
Why? Why should corporations, unions, non-profits, etc. be on equal footing with human beings? And how does their subordination threaten the free speech rights of individuals?
Wow. I knew my blog was powerful, but I never dreamed that comments left here were responsible for economic globalization!
Why? Why should corporations, unions, non-profits, etc. be on equal footing with human beings? And how does their subordination threaten the free speech rights of individuals?
Why shouldn’t they be on equal footing? And if government can restrict the free speech rights of groups of individuals, what’s to stop it from restricting the free speech rights of individuals?
Wow. I knew my blog was powerful, but I never dreamed that comments left here were responsible for economic globalization!
You know what I mean 🙂
This is a ridiculously stupid argument, the reason why this decision makes sense is because corporations are MADE UP OF PEOPLE AND OWNED BY PEOPLE. And the people of this country are protected by the constitution. To say that just because a group of individuals who decide to form a group for the purpose of making money give up any rights protected by the constitution is like saying everyone has freedom of religion until they decide to practice as a group. I suppose you would agree that the patrons of your church sacrifice their religious rights because they do it under the same roof, right CJ?
11bravo, Patrons of a church? If a church follows Biblical precepts, everyone under that roof is equal with rights given to each by God, not by any government or Constitution–so I don’t get the comparison. A corporation is formed by the owners of the company and those owners frequently do not share their rights with those who “work” under the same roof. Clearly, the owners and the workers are not equal and often the owners want the right not to share with the workers or to treat them fairly–hence unions (which I recognize can also become too powerful, corrupt, etc.). I think I understand what C.J. is saying. The government needs to protect individuals from the tyranny of any entity powerful enough to take away the constitutional rights of individuals. The power of these entities with large sums of money to sway government officials (often to the detriment of individuals–or the citizens, in general) certainly needs to be curbed rather than enhanced. Yes, I know I’m in over my head in this discussion–just had some desire to simplify a problem too complex for simplification.
Sharon wrote: The government needs to protect individuals from the tyranny of any entity powerful enough to take away the constitutional rights of individuals. The power of these entities with large sums of money to sway government officials (often to the detriment of individuals–or the citizens, in general) certainly needs to be curbed rather than enhanced.
Okay, Sharon, tell us what entity is being restricted in the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution?
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.
David, I knew that I wasn’t covering all my bases–just interested in the conversation. I assume you are saying that the First Amendment rights are the only “rights” we have. I believe the Declaration of Independence (We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed) states that our government exists to secure for its citizens the rights in the Declaration and that as individuals we get to vote (or elect our representatives to vote for us) to insure these protections of our rights. However, this new Supreme Court ruling seems to increase the possibility that “our elected officials” can be “bought” by the money from large corporations and unions to circumvent our “consent” or lack thereof.
DPJ asks, “Why shouldn’t they be on equal footing?” I do believe I’ve answered that question already–both in the original post and in my subsequent comments. The question is also answered in more detail in Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion, to which I linked. I’m not sure how much more documentation or explanation I can give than has already been provided.
DPJ and 11bravo then say, respectively: “And if government can restrict the free speech rights of groups of individuals, what’s to stop it from restricting the free speech rights of individuals?” and, “the reason why this decision makes sense is because corporations are MADE UP OF PEOPLE AND OWNED BY PEOPLE. And the people of this country are protected by the constitution.”
That’s, of course, what the majority of the court (5-4) decided. But that was the very issue in question: is there a distinction between individuals and corporate “persons”? The dissenting members believe there is. A modern corporation is not merely a group of individuals, but “A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members.” As such, it’s not a group of people with free speech rights, but a separate, distinct, invented, legal “person.” It’s the speech of that “legal fiction” that is in question here, not the speech of the individual persons who make up the company. The reasons for this are obvious (to me, at least):
* A person who joins an organization for one purpose should not be exploited for another purpose. If you go to work for XYZ Company to make widgets, that labor relationship does not give the organization the right to use you for their political purposes. When a corporation speaks as a corporation it is speaking for its stockholders and employees, whether or not those individuals are all in agreement. Those individuals who are not in agreement are in a position where their own voice as an individual is being drowned out by their company’s voice, which is supposedly speaking on their behalf. Perhaps a better-known example would be union representation. Workers are required to join the union in many cases, and then are misrepresented in political matters by the union leadership.
* Shareholders of a corporation may be foreign nationals, not “the people in this country” of whom 11bravo speaks. As Justice Stevens says, “their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.”
* “The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process,” Stevens also states.
As for DPJ’s question as to “what entity is being restricted in the First Amendment,” I’ll let Justice Stevens answer again:
Sharon, the answer is “Congress,” i. e. government. The whole point of the First Amendment is to protect free speech, and it makes no distinction between individual persons and groups of persons. In fact, it names one type of corporation – the press. If the Journal Star, US News & World Report, or a CNN commentator can advocate and criticize then why can’t Citizens United?
…this new Supreme Court ruling seems to increase the possibility that “our elected officials” can be “bought” by the money from large corporations and unions to circumvent our “consent” or lack thereof.
No it does not. Leave it to politicians to restrict free speech because they think the people are too dumb to discern what is true and untrue.
This isn’t about money going to politicians, this is about the right of corporations or unions to advocate and criticize without restriction. Corporations and unions can speak for individuals who do not have the resources to do this effectively. There is a reason for the National Rifle Assocation, National Abortion Rights Action League, National Organization for Women, The American Civil Liberties Union, etc. (and these are no different than Caterpillar, Boeing, Ford Motor Co., etc.). My free speech should be no different as an individual or as part of a group of individuals.
The Supreme Court has sold out the American People.
Every Tea Partier who fears that President Obama is stealing your individual liberties should now realize that their liberties have already been stolen by the conservative justices on the Supreme Court. There was once a conversation about weighing the interests of Wall Street vs. those of Main Street, well guess what? Main Street no longer exists.
The Supreme Court, citing free speech, argued that corporations and unions can spend their own funds, and not just contributions from employees for political action committees. The court also removed restrictions on the timing and content of independent campaign advocacy initiatives. This ruling was arguably the most un-American and destructive decision in recent US history.
With its 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court also preemptively killed the campaign of the next Barack Obama. They’ve opened the door for monopolies and oligopolies. They’ve brightened the eyes of every would-be robber baron who fondly reflects on the early 20th century when civil liberties didn’t get in the way of economic power. You’re going to be convinced that the corporations are supporting politicians who will protect your interests. What you won’t know is that they’re going to be silently robbing you of your liberty behind closed doors.
The Supreme Court has weakened the knees of politicians who are already manipulated heavily by corporate America. No elected official in his or her right mind is going to support any initiative that votes against corporate interests. America just took a double dose of Capitalism 101, and as a professor of finance, I seriously wonder if our nation understands how unfettered capitalism will ultimately destroy a society.
You can expect the wealth gap to grow, and for the bulk of America’s economic power to be controlled by a smaller number of people. America will soon become “The United States of Wal-Mart.” Politicians will undermine labor rights, and taxes for the wealthy are going to drop. America will be run like a household where the children tell their parents what everyone is going to eat for dinner-and that meal is going to be unhealthy.
The primary problem with having too many capitalist interests impacting democracy is that the beast of capitalism doesn’t care about people. It doesn’t care about the poor, since it’s more profitable to simply strip their labor rights and enslave them. It doesn’t care about taking care of the elderly, since the bottom line is enhanced by simply allowing them to die. It doesn’t care about predatory lending, the environment, protecting the Constitution or anything else that might get in the way of making another dollar. By unleashing the beast of capitalism and giving it unfettered access to our Democratic institutions, the Supreme Court may have been invoking a recipe for our nation’s political suicide.
Perhaps Congress will step in and respond to the ruling as soon as possible. It could require corporations to get shareholder approval before engaging in massive spending campaigns or it could require even more public revelation of corporate political spending. But that’s probably not going to happen, do you know why? Because any multi-billion dollar corporation that gets attacked by a politician has the power to remove that politician from office.
By Dr. Boyce Watkins
CJ, I think you’re becoming a liberal 🙂
Those individuals who are not in agreement are in a position where their own voice as an individual is being drowned out by their company’s voice, which is supposedly speaking on their behalf.
I’d like to know some specific examples of a company’s position differing from some of their employees. But I think that’s irrelevant. You work for the company because they pay you wages. If they advocate something you disagree with, then that’s life, and the government has no right to meddle in such disagreement. At least the company is using its own funds for political advocacy/criticism. Unions, OTOH, use its members’ dues for political advocacy/criticism. No one’s forcing you to work for a specific corporation, but in many states you are forced to join a union.
I think C.J. and Emerge have just said everything that I tried to say–but better. Don’t we have two hometown examples right now of a corporation influencing elected officials (those who want to be elected again)? How else do you explain the museum and the charter school. Weren’t county board members just pressured by Caterpillar? I don’t think there is any doubt that unions are losing power in this country–doesn’t that leave the corporations with much of the power?
DPJ – you say “I’d like to know some specific examples of a company’s position differing from some of their employees.” I suspect that the views of hourly employees of Caterpillar do not coincide with what the corporation views as apropos and will be supporting with corporate dollars. I expect that you will respond that the hourlies’ views will be protected by the unions’ ability to likewise contribute, however the argument is fallacious since the hourly workers are de facto supporting and contributing to both sides while management is not.
Dr. Boyce Watkins…yeah, he’s got a lot of credibility 🙂
DPJ says, “CJ, I think you’re becoming a liberal.” Heh. Not hardly.
“I’d like to know some specific examples of a company’s position differing from some of their employees.” I would think that company-supported free trade policies that favor outsourcing labor overseas might conflict with U.S. workers who would prefer to keep their jobs. Also, those who hold stock in a company via mutual funds and belong to a labor union will certainly be “speaking” out of both sides of their mouths (assuming money is speech).
“You work for the company because they pay you wages. If they advocate something you disagree with, then that’s life….” Well, this sweeps away all ethical responsibility on the part of corporations, doesn’t it? So if I pay you to shovel my driveway, can I tell my congressman that you support whatever I support?
“No one’s forcing you to work for a specific corporation….” This surely ignores the consolidation and globalization of industry and economic realities of our world today. It also ignores the principle at issue.
Spikeless,
The employees aren’t contributing to both sides financially, and it’s none of government’s business to decide whether corporations and employees have diverging interests.
I would think that company-supported free trade policies that favor outsourcing labor overseas might conflict with U.S. workers who would prefer to keep their jobs.
You’ve taken the union side of the free trade debate. That’s fine. You have the right to do that. 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.
Also, those who hold stock in a company via mutual funds and belong to a labor union will certainly be “speaking” out of both sides of their mouths (assuming money is speech).
You own stock to profit, and if you have voting rights, you can influence a corporation’s boardroom decisions – majority rules.
Well, this sweeps away all ethical responsibility on the part of corporations, doesn’t it?>BR>
So “ethical responsibility” requires they can only use their corporate funds if 100% of their employees agree with their position?
So if I pay you to shovel my driveway, can I tell my congressman that you support whatever I support?
Sure you can. But since when do we automatically assume 100% of employees agree with their employer’s political advocacy?
“The Press” is not a corporation. (Although I am not surprised someone might think so) “The press” is the publication of information for mass distribution. You or I may do it from our basements.
A corporation, on the other hand, is a legal person, who can act in every capacity as an individual except for a few exceptions:
1) They can’t be tried for a crime.
2) They can’t vote.
3) They are owned and traded amongst the same 1/2% of the population that they have been for over 100 years. (minority ownership might change, but the same majority shareholders stay virtually forever)
“You own stock to profit, and if you have voting rights, you can influence a corporation’s boardroom decisions – majority rules.”
HAHAHA your less than 1% of ownership gets you less than an plea for your proxy in most cases. What voice do you think you have against Owens’ 2 million or more shares?
“I’d like to know some specific examples of a company’s position differing from some of their employees.”
How about… let’s move 8,000 jobs to Texas. Just for the cheaper labor.
Previous posting by Dr. Watkins … I seriously wonder if our nation understands how unfettered capitalism will ultimately destroy a society.
Look at this link:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-philbin/2009/10/08/documentary-airing-tonight-shows-unfettered-capitalism-lifts-poor-d
Something to ponder/consider.
Because any multi-billion dollar corporation that gets attacked by a politician has the power to remove that politician from office.
Only voters can remove an office holder
The Supreme Court, citing free speech, argued that corporations and unions can spend their own funds, and not just contributions from employees for political action committees. (Left in place was the ban on direct giving to candidates or PAC of the candidate)
The court also removed restrictions on the timing and content of independent campaign advocacy initiatives.( I’m sure George Soros was glad to hear that)
This ruling was arguably the most un-American and destructive decision in recent US history. ( What about Roe v Wade, or Dred Scot, or Plessey v Ferguson.
“The Press” is not a corporation.
They’re owned by them. NBC is owned by General Electric, CBS is owned by National Amusements, ABC is owned by Disney, the Peoria Journal Star’s owner GateHouse Media is itself owned by Fortress Investment Group, which owns shortline parent RailAmerica and other properties. And so forth and so on…
How about… let’s move 8,000 jobs to Texas. Just for the cheaper labor.
No…the rising cost of doing business in Illinois, and increasingly strict EPA emissions standards. Cat has exited the truck engine business for those and other reasons beyond its control. And it’s 1,400 jobs, not 8,000.
DPJ: “No one’s forcing you to work for a specific corporation, but in many states you are forced to join a union.” That is BS. No one forces you to join a union either, unless you take a job at a corporation/organization that has a union. Just like you don’t have to work for Corporation A, you don’t have to join Union B.
And I doubt that only union folks disagree with the outsourcing of American jobs. I know a whole bunch of non-union folks who have lost their jobs to overseas competition (eg lots of call center employees). Plus, there are tons of other examples: Think every hospital employee agrees with the position of most of the medical industry’s position on health care reform? Think all bank tellers want no financial reform?
Sud O. Nym wrote: No one forces you to join a union either, unless you take a job at a corporation/organization that has a union.
Bingo!
And I doubt that only union folks disagree with the outsourcing of American jobs. I know a whole bunch of non-union folks who have lost their jobs to overseas competition (eg lots of call center employees).
Never said union folks are the only ones, but that’s not the point. Corporations fight tax increases and new regulations which drive up the cost of doing business in this country (and often force outsourcing to cut costs). Sometimes, union and non-union folks vote for politicians that favor these same tax increases and new regulations. It’s not difficult to understand why a corporation’s political advocacy/criticism tends to be conservative and union advocacy/criticism tends to be liberal. Who’s right? Not for government to decide.
It’s a complex issue, evidenced by the wide range of pro’s and con’s expressed above. It is going to be interesting to watch how this plays out in the next election cycles. But I would remind people of David Ran$burg and all of the money spent in local Peoria elections. The big spenders (owners of corporations) shot their wad like and were hare today gone tomorrow, while Gary “The Tortise” Sandberg with the highest number of votes per dollar spent, is still around.
What happens when the dollars spent by one corporation don’t turn into the legislation that they want? A good example here is big pharma that has been spending all kinds of money pushing for Nationalized Healthcare…..and now they may not get it….?
David Jordan: A correction, if you don’t mind. The corporate press is owned by corporations. Some press are owned by regular citizens. Like you. And me.
Regular citizens like you and me can also be corporations. It feels like there is alot of corporate bashing because many people identify corporations as being companies like CAT and forget that there are many corporations that may be a one man show. Most small businesses are incorporated in some manner.
Thanks for the “correction,” Billy. 🙂
I have to completely disagree with your assessment of this ruling.
This ruling has everything to do with protecting corporations with living people. Anyone with two eyes, and the capacity to think, knows that corporations are made of human beings. As American companies full of American citizens, they are afforded protections under the Constitution like any other citizen. What the Supreme Court did was say that everyone has the right to get their opinions out there, whether they are rich or poor. It is up to the people to decide what they listen to for themselves.
This is one hundred percent a free speech issue. Your comments beg the question 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?
Lastly, my opinion of the American people’s intelligence is high enough that I think they can make a responsible decision as to what they should believe on their own. They do not need the government stopping people with opinions, no matter who they are, from speaking.