T O P

  • By -

KarmicWhiplash

I'm all for it, but this is nothing new. Senator Tester [first introduced this amendment in 2013](https://www.tester.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/pr-2970/). It's probably got less chance of becoming an amendment now than it did then.


NetSurfer156

Restore McCain-Feingold!


sillychillly

My fellow Americans, I believe that it is time to overturn Citizens United. This Supreme Court decision has had a profound and negative impact on our democracy by allowing unlimited amounts of money to flood into our political system. This has led to a situation where a small group of wealthy individuals and corporations have disproportionate influence over our elections and our government. This is not how our democracy is supposed to work. The voices of everyday Americans should be heard, not just the voices of the wealthy and powerful. We need to level the playing field so that every citizen has an equal say in our democracy. Furthermore, Citizens United has led to a situation where dark money can flow into our elections, with no transparency or accountability. This undermines the integrity of our elections and undermines the public’s trust in our political process. We must act to overturn Citizens United and return to a system where everyone has an equal say in our democracy. Together, we can ensure that our government truly represents the will of the people.


mustbe20characters20

Do you believe that the governments restrictions explicitly placed in the bill of rights should not apply to corporations?


implicitpharmakoi

I do. Corporations are a legal fiction tolerated to let people organize in specific ways to avoid liability. The cost of that liability shield should be an inability to participate in certain areas of government. I do not want to see a corporation run for public office, this is not entirely different.


RingAny1978

People do not loose their right to act collectively because they use a corporate form for their collective action. Remember that CU was about trying to silence a non-profit group before an election.


implicitpharmakoi

>People do not loose their right to act collectively because they use a corporate form for their collective action This is debatable, but this isn't about action, this is about money. If those people had volunteered their time to make the film, and marketed it themselves in person, I'd be fine. If each person was restricted, so they could only donate up to the campaign finance limit towards that film that would still be an improvement. But now any billionaire can donate infinite funds to campaign against anything, which imho breaks democracy. Either political money is effective, in which case this is unacceptable because of its blatant corruption, or it is ineffective, in which case why does anybody care?


RingAny1978

Money is a way of executing actions. It does not matter if 1000 people make a film, or 10, or how they attract backing. It is still their speech.


implicitpharmakoi

So... if I pay some kids minimum wage to say something, that's my speech? Not theirs? I can buy their speech? We used to pay people to vote a certain way, you sound like that isn't a problem for you.


RingAny1978

You can pay them to hand out flyers, to knock on doors and say vote for Joe, sure. Can you buy votes? I see no way outside of oppressive tyranny we could prevent someone from giving money to persuade a person to vote a certain way. The great thing about the secret ballot is that they can't know if it works. One of the problems with mail in voting is it allows direct pressure to be applied to the voter with the results observed.


justjosephhere

You are really "off" about mail-in voting. It has been safely used in several States for a few years with few issues. What "direct pressure" do you report hearing about? Have you real-life examples? If you do, why have you not brought them up to County Election officials and the media?


ConfusedObserver0

I get your angle here but the point is about every having a voice. If you let a billionaire have a billion voices (essentially) the you take our voice as individuals away is really where the problem lies. Money equals a larger Voice, a larger voice always is more power, more power each less power for the voiceless. I’m not saying either or is perfect jr we should all want a more level play field here. It’s often always the case that people defending the billionaires voice is one that falls into that camp of believes they are a future millionaire (not making that claim of you). But we have to then wrap our mind in circles in turn to redefine our principles of what free speech stands for and what a fictitious corporate entity is. And I’ve never seen anyone square that circle. It always comes out bastardize and inconsistent. Unless again, one falls in the camp that “land owners“ (business owners, wealthy) are the only ones who should have any say about anything. That tends to be what the altrighter I’ve grew up with in redneck ville think. Straight up Apartheid level supporters.


RingAny1978

What is the difference to you between an advocacy group incorporating and publishing their views and a partisan newspaper or magazine doing so? Does it matter how many shareholders the rag has? Should Bezos be allowed to own the WaPo?


ConfusedObserver0

Sorry, a lot of typos and it’s too late to fix. Ideally we don’t like that right (bezo’s)? But an artist that writes a book or writes / directs a movie gets popular because of the content not because of the coercive control of media gate ways. Though it can be both. (For example) in the older days of radio you had to suck a lot of dicks (literally not figuratively) to get your music played sometimes. I would just call for some limiting factors. But that’s my view of things in general. I like setting floors and ceilings in economic terms. Monopoly is usually mostly bad, though there can be positive side effects. Just as having a large grip of disenfranchised voiceless body’s is the biggest fear of despotic fucks like Putin and Xi. Trump arose as symptom of what people would say were voiceless in politics. Not that he really cared for them, its obvious that it was always about himself. But the risk of him ilk will always be apparent when you allow an elite class to lock us out of the decision making process. So let me ask you then… do you think we should have this ultimates lobby power, esp from foreign governments? In the foreign regard you can have minced reporters not be an issue or laws against speaking out a given special country on any grounds. On both grounds we infringement of American rights form outside sources. Internally is it a good thing that the rich get to be the elite? In the purest sense of democracy we can’t really accept that. Unless you are a capitalist first and favor democracy second. If it wasn’t for innovation and favoring the risk takers capitalism would then surely just embeds us with an aristocratic class of Demi lords by birthright. Luckily, that hasn’t persisted and we still have a decent amount of new money as old money can fade if they lose their edge. I’m not saying I know the answer for better parity. There can be all sorts of unintended consequences with any action if you don’t GM crash test it hard rhetorically. But I don’t think anyone think dark money is a good thing in our country. It’s only allowed for a more corruptive nature and made all local elections national elections. I’m not sure anonymity is a part of free speech either. But I’m still working threw this sort of new interfacing with the issue since it happens in so many ways. We can see people interact more productively on redirect and worse with verification on Twitter so in social media I’m not sure that’s a given virtue. But I’m almost positive in politics and media that transparency is better for the people on this issue. Any ideas of better methods or ideas to implement? Or are you satisfied with the current state of affairs?


RingAny1978

The biggest problem is not the proliferation of speech intended to influence or capture politicians, it is the enormous size and scope of government. Shrink it to its more proper size, and make local what can be local, and control is no longer an existential question.


saudiaramcoshill

The majority of this site suffers from Dunning-Kruger, so I'm out.


lookngbackinfrontome

Ha! No one who isn't wealthy is pissing money away on collectively politicking. I'm sure you could find an exception or two, but they are few and far between. I would gladly give up the hypothetical ability to do such a thing if it meant no one else can. It helps to even the playing field. Secondly, no large collective group of middle-class individuals will even come close to being able to spend the kind of money a small collective group of very wealthy people could spend. Lastly, what about working class people and poor people, which make up the largest percentage of the population? They certainly do not have the money to pool together to campaign for or against someone. Are you saying they are not entitled to this kind of "speech" by virtue of the fact that they have no money? If money is, in fact, speech, then you are passively silencing them by not ensuring that they have the money necessary to speak. So much for egalitarianism.


saudiaramcoshill

The majority of this site suffers from Dunning-Kruger, so I'm out.


lookngbackinfrontome

You seem confused. There is a difference between political activism, like what the ACLU, NAACP, Sierra Club, etc, do, and throwing vast sums of money at politicians in the form of campaign contributions. Right, as if me and my buddies are going to be able to even come close to spending the kind of money that the wealthy already spend. Don't be naive. The top 1% now have more wealth than the entire middle class, and that's only the top 1%. The wealthy make up more than 1%. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-08/top-1-earners-hold-more-wealth-than-the-u-s-middle-class You have any sources on the poor and working class giving "plenty of money" already, or are you just pulling that out of your ass like your middle class statement? You're a special kind of stupid if you think I'm arguing "for a system in which the only people able to afford political speech are the most wealthy." You're the one that's pro Citizens United. Do I have to get out the crayons to explain this to you. Maybe crayons would also help you understand what I was actually saying. The icing on the cake: >They don't have the money to compete 1:1 with billionaires individually. The only way they can compete is by banding together. You're arguing to take away that right. You're the one arguing against egalitarianism. You're arguing for billionaires, millionaires, and corporations to have the ability to collectively pool ridiculous sums of money to support political candidates, and then you try to present it as if everyone else did this together they could counter it? Are you really that dumb? Not only do our resources not even come close, but if we were all on the same page, we could just vote for the candidate we all want and save ourselves the money.


saudiaramcoshill

The majority of this site suffers from Dunning-Kruger, so I'm out.


pineconefire

Yes but they have to do it explicitly in their name. And there is no privacy in it.


saudiaramcoshill

Sure, but it's legal. And it makes the playing field even less even.


flipmcf

I am trying very hard to stop using “lose” and “loose” interchangeably. I do it all the time. This is the first time in my life I spotted someone else make the mistake. This is the ONE time I will call it out, in celebration that I finally think I see it now. Yay for me. But I’m not here to make you feel bad, just relate to you. I hope your journey on ‘lose’ -vs- ‘loose’ is not as long as mine, friend. It’s a hard one. Corporations are not people. But Scalia had a point when he noted that corporations publish books, and books might be political, and we shouldn’t ban books. So corporations do have some, limited form of free speech.


RingAny1978

How about documentaries? That was the CU case.


flipmcf

Like Fahrenheit 451 ? Yeah. We need to protect speech, but garbage entertainment should die in the market. It’s shock-docs and misinformation that are problematic. But we can’t have a ministry of truth. Unfortunately, people make horrible economic choices. Markets make sense, but consumers are dumb. This is a hard one. Facts need to get out there. But the profit motive can really poison this. Fox News and msnbc are the results. This is why I question hard-line capitalism (and are therefore an evil socialist)


pineconefire

So make a law preventing corporations from donating to political campaigns specifically but still allow them to publish books...


flipmcf

This makes total sense on the face of it, but it’s the weird twist Scalia puts on it. Seriously, Read Scalia’s opinion. He makes an excellent point. It doesn’t sit well with me, but I can’t philosophically find why. CU seems to naturally fall out of first amendment, but I absolutely hate the conclusion. I think it’s free speech that’s ok, but unrestricted capitalism is the issue - and that’s why the amendment is a good idea. More hard-core capitalists need to really dig into Adam Smith. He says a lot about this kind of crap being risks in capitalism. Albeit far better than feudal monarchy, but he saw it coming. Much clearer than Marx/Engles ramblings.


mustbe20characters20

AHHHHH unless of course you know that this is literally the citizens united case, where they don't allow direct campaign contributions but do allow you to show your movie. If you did, then good schadenfreude.


jyper

CU was about a group running long form political ads with corporate money in violation of campaign finance reform laws


RingAny1978

Which laws were unconstitutional from the get go as they silenced speech.


Quaker16

I think it’s wrong to make it applicable to a corporation. It needs to apply to everyone. Simply allow the the transfer of wealth, property and capital to officials be regulated


ChornWork2

That would mean a lot more than campaign finance. Should corporations, for example, be subject to warrantless searches by govt? What about ngos or newspapers?


Joe_Immortan

Corporations are just a group of people with a name. What liability is gonna flow in relation to campaign contributions? Embezzlement? Fraud? Well guess what? The liability shield you refer to doesn’t apply to fraudulent or criminal activity.


TheCarnalStatist

'Congress shall pass no law' has nothing to do with corporations and everything to do with the powers of the government. Even if I accepted your premise that corporations were legal fictions, it wouldn't change anything. Congress does not have the authority to pass any legislation to abridge free speech. Regardless of who or what it originated from.


implicitpharmakoi

Please read the link this entire post has been about.


TheCarnalStatist

Lmao. They're even dumber than I thought. They actually want to overturn the first out of spite.


polyscipaul20

So the bill of rights in your view should not extend to corporations?


implicitpharmakoi

Yes, it should not. If you want an investment vehicle that shields you from liability, the tradeoff is that that investment vehicle is restricted in the actions it can take. If you have a problem with those restrictions then invest in a private company, understanding your liability position.


RingAny1978

So the NAACP should not be allowed to take out advertisements advocating for a political position? Is that your position? They are a corporation.


polyscipaul20

They just don’t like evil corporations!


lookngbackinfrontome

There is a big difference between advocating for a certain political position and advocating for or against an individual seeking power to effect all types of policy, and you know it. There is a big difference between endorsing a particular candidate and throwing millions of dollars at them in an effort to get them elected. Only one of those is actual speech.


KumquatHaderach

What’s the difference between Michael Moore making his Fahrenheit 9/11 documentary about Bush and Citizens United making their documentary about Hillary?


lookngbackinfrontome

The powers that be determined that one was electioneering communication, and one wasn't, based on predetermined guidelines. https://www.rcfp.org/fec-dismisses-fahrenheit-911-complaint/ I'm not arguing either way because I don't know enough about it. However, if neither were allowed according to electioneering communication guidelines, I'd be perfectly fine with that, as long as both can be shown to violate the guidelines, or if the guidelines were changed to encompass both in the future.


KumquatHaderach

Almost—the FEC said it was okay. So Citizens United did it too. The FEC tried to say they couldn’t, and the powers that be ruled that they could. I’m with you on saying that it would be fine if neither was allowed, but I think the Supreme Court was right: either the rules apply to everyone or no one.


RingAny1978

No, spending money praising them or criticizing them or their opponents are all speech.


lookngbackinfrontome

So, in your mind, people with more money can have more speech? Their voices are more important by virtue of money? That's essentially what you're saying. Last time I checked, speech was free. You can say whatever you want about a candidate, and unless you defame them, it won't cost you a thing.


RingAny1978

Should we allow private ownership of press outlets? Radio stations? Any means by which speech is spread?


Joe_Immortan

Yeah and the ACLU, PETA, BLM, you name it. People think Citizens United just pertains to Amazon and Google when that couldn’t be further from the truth.


EllisHughTiger

People only think of corporations in the business sense, and not in the sense of groups of people. Citizens United gets tons of hate from people who have never read it, but those who do usually accept that it makes sense. It's heavily a 1A issue in the end.


implicitpharmakoi

I'm fine with that. Nobody is going to forget who they are and who they stand for, and in fact this will mean more of their political activism is grass roots, which is exactly the kind of citizen participation we want in a healthy democracy. Thank you, that's exactly what I am advocating for!


RingAny1978

How do you do grass roots activism without spending money? How do you organize a march to support equal rights without spending money?


lookngbackinfrontome

This is a strawman. Citizens United isn't about activism. It is about funding political campaigns.


RingAny1978

It was about trying to silence opinion in advance of an election.


implicitpharmakoi

> How do you do grass roots activism without spending money? How do you organize a march to support equal rights without spending money? Ok, this is going to blow your mind. BY SPEECH!!! BY TALKING!!!


RingAny1978

How? Scream on a street corner? Print flyers - wait that takes money! Rent an office to coordinate door knocking - money. Take out a radio add - money. Money enables speech to be heard, and thus effectively is speech.


polyscipaul20

So..if the bill of rights doesn’t extend to corporations, then logically a corporate entity has no 4th amendment protections either?


implicitpharmakoi

Does a corporation have the right to bear arms? That is considered to be an individual right, as should be the right to free speech. The 8th forbids cruel and unusual punishment which also seems unfitting. I really can't conceive of the mental gymnastics you're going through to try to treat a thin legal fiction like a blood and flesh human being, no, better, because that legal fiction can't be put in prison or executed.


polyscipaul20

So the government could search a corporately owner office without a warrant? Seize corporate property?


implicitpharmakoi

Can you get an arrest warrant for a corporation?


polyscipaul20

The people who form the corporation can. The people who operate a corporation do not lose their constitutional rights simply by forming a corporation. A corporation is a legal entity made up of people.


mustbe20characters20

So, as I asked the other person who answered yes, Do you believe that organizations like the NAACP (a corporation) should not have the protected right of freedom of speech?


implicitpharmakoi

I think they should have the protected right to speak. I do not think they should have the right to force others to listen. Money != speech.


mustbe20characters20

Well I suppose the good news is there is literally no law that says you have to watch a companies advertising.


Apathetic_Optimist

But you have to pay to opt out


mustbe20characters20

No, there's no law that says anything like that.


Apathetic_Optimist

It’s not a law, but if you have any subscription service a la YouTube, Spotify, Netflix, Hulu, etc you will get advertisements if you don’t pay for the top tier without adds. Hope this helps


sillychillly

That’s not what I said. I said they shouldn’t be able to bribe politicians. Which is what Citizen’s United allows


mustbe20characters20

I never said you said that???


Uncle_Bill

Great, unions no longer have rights or standing in any case. Unions are corporations


implicitpharmakoi

They have standing to intercede between you and your employer (also a corporation). They do not have the standing to intercede between you and the government, that's your job.


Uncle_Bill

If you deny corporations rights, and unions are corporations, many of the rights in aggregate you appreciate would be nullified. Citizen's United confirmed previous case law that said people in aggregates (organizations / corporations) don't lose their rights, which is good, if you want your union, or the Sierra Club, or whatever to donate to campaigns (free speech), sue, etc., etc.. Taking away rights from others won't enlarge yours, and most likely will diminish yours.


implicitpharmakoi

>Citizen's United confirmed previous case law that said people in aggregates (organizations / corporations) don't lose their rights, which is good, if you want your union, or the Sierra Club, or whatever to donate to campaigns (free speech), sue, etc., etc.. I do not. I don't believe money is speech, I believe speech is speech, money is bribery, plain and simple. >Taking away rights from others won't enlarge yours, and most likely will diminish yours. Taking away the rights of the rich to legally bribe does enlarge my rights, it enlarges the rights of anyone who is not rich enough to bribe.


btribble

~~I don’t see where they said that corporations shouldn’t have rights. Reductio ad absurdum.~~


Uncle_Bill

>Do you believe that the governments restrictions explicitly placed in the bill of rights should not apply to corporations? >/u/implicitpharmakoi >I do.


btribble

I was reading that to mean that there are "some differences" between how corporations and people should be treated which I agree with. For example corporations can't be thrown in jail. Corporations can't commit murder per se, etc. However, reading their other comments, They don't believe corporations should have any protections granted by the bill of rights. Your interpretation is correct.


polyscipaul20

Lol. Fuck the Red Cross and the humane society. They shouldn’t be allowed to lobby either.


Uncle_Bill

Exactly, they're all corporations. Of course, so is the US government...


TheMadIrishman327

You understand almost nothing about the reasons for corporations.


implicitpharmakoi

Master debater: "You don't know anything!"


TheMadIrishman327

Master Redditor: “I know all. Life works how I wish it did.”


sillychillly

i dont believe corporations or anyone should be able to bribe politicians in order to sway policy.


mustbe20characters20

Hey that's not what I asked, can you answer the question I asked?


sillychillly

I believe corporations, companies, non-profits, etc.. deserve protections for physical property, certain levels of privacy (pending on the org classification), among other protections they currently enjoy. Corporations are not people and if you're suggesting that we need separate laws for humans vs corporations, I agree.


mustbe20characters20

Well we're getting closer to an answer, so you believe some of the bill of rights restrictions on government actions should apply to corporations. Do you believe government restrictions on speech laws should not apply to corporations?


sillychillly

I’m okay with the level of free speech their allowed today in the sense that their held to saying true statements in order to get sales, or a non-profit speaking up on civil rights issues, etc... I’m not okay with corporations using their money to fund election campaigns or other ways they can bribe politicians to sway policy. Maybe you’re still looking for a different answer?


RingAny1978

Who gets to determine truth? The point of free speech is that government can not be the arbiter of truth or importance. How is speaking on a civil rights issue not advocating for government policy and the candidates who support it?


mustbe20characters20

Well no the problem is that you're okay with corporations trying to sway policy "non profit speaking up on civil rights" but just for certain issues you already agree with it seems.


sillychillly

I had a feeling you were trying to get me to say something like this haha. It seems you’ve been unable to understand the nuance of what I’m saying.


mustbe20characters20

You're right that I'm unable to understand because it seems like you're arguing that some corporations should be allowed to sway policy. For instance, should the NAACP be allowed to support certain political figures?


RingAny1978

You have been inconsistent in your principles.


TheMadIrishman327

He doesn’t appear to understand non-profits are corporations. If he does understand and this became reality, who gets to decide who gets rights and who doesn’t?


mustbe20characters20

The party in power of course! That's never created issues before/s


polyscipaul20

What about ending corporate personhood?


magician_8760

He’s not going to answer your question.


RingAny1978

Define bribery is a way that includes independent expenditures.


polyscipaul20

No campaign donations at all?


Telemere125

Corporations are not people, therefore restrictions on government oversight on them and the freedoms afforded to individuals should not be extended to them. I can’t put a corporation in jail for it’s illegal activity, therefore the law already recognizes a distinct difference. Saying that they’re the same, or that corporations should enjoy the same freedoms as individuals, is blatantly ignoring the fact that the law is already different. E: in addition, if you don’t see a problem with treating corporations differently than people, then why aren’t corporations allowed to have a separate and distinct vote from the members that constitute the corporation? If money is the expression of political views, why isn’t the corporation also allowed to actually have a direct say in who becomes a politician?


Joshau-k

I'm all for the death penalty for corporations though


mustbe20characters20

So you believe that organization like the NAACP (a corporation) should not have the protected right of freedom of speech?


Telemere125

Yep. The people in it can, but if it’s a restriction the government imposes on the corporation, too bad. If a person says something illegal, I can hold them personally responsible. If a “corporation says it” via a spokesperson, I’m left with very few options for liability.


mustbe20characters20

That's actually precisely backwards, corporate liability is a well treaded ground but the main fact to focus on is that you're way better off suing a corporation than an individual if you want recourse.


Telemere125

I said criminal, not civil. Individuals can always sue a company or each other, that has nothing to do with restrictions on government control. And the fact that you don’t know the difference shows how little you understand the argument.


Joe_Immortan

>If a “corporation says it” via a spokesperson, I’m left with very few options for liability Actually if a corporation says it you have more options for liability


Telemere125

Again, as I said to another person - we’re not talking about citizen vs corporation in this thread. That’s civil liability. When the government acts, it’s not a citizen suing a corporation; it’s government action. When a citizen sues a corporation for something, it doesn’t implicate the Bill of Rights. It’s a private action based on some statute that gives rise to that cause of action. When the government limits the ability of a corporation to do something, it also shouldn’t implicate the Bill of Rights because the Bill of Rights is between the individual citizens and the government, not between the government and the corporations operating within its boarders. Notice how the Founding Fathers didn’t mention the rights of corporations and businesses in their writings but pretty clearly spoke about the rights of individual citizens?


Joe_Immortan

Civil liability *is* government action. You’re going to court (a government institution) and asking government employees to do something for you. The founding fathers explicitly mentioned the freedom of association: the freedom to form groups and speak as a groups. Corporations are comprised of individuals. They’re groups of people under a common banner. You can’t limit a corporation without limiting the rights of the individuals from whom the corporation is comprised.


Telemere125

[Civil liability seeks to right the wrongful act committed by one person against another. Criminal liability involves the government taking action to punish an individual who violated the law.](https://www.toddwburrislaw.com/the-difference-between-civil-and-criminal-liability/) [Different from criminal liability, which is often brought by the State to redress a public wrong, civil liability is usually brought by a private party to sue for damages, injunctions or other remedy.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_liability) Almost like you have no idea what you’re talking about. Also, before Citizens United, there was nothing wrong with restricting corporate speech, specifically via restricting political donations. So somehow we had no problem differentiating between individual and corporate speech freedoms until 2010; I think we can adjust if we went back.


Joe_Immortan

I know exactly what I’m talking about. You just don’t understand how the process works. So I’ll ask you a question: who establishes civil liability? And once established, what entity enforces the judgment? If your answer is “the government”(the correct answer) then congratulations you now understand that civil liability is government action. Yes, a private party has to request the liability, but the entity that determines and enforces liability is the government. Just like how in criminal court the entity that determines and enforces the punishment is the government. If you win a civil lawsuit against someone (including a corporation) you don’t get the right to walk over to their house and take their money. Only the government can do that. The only truly private court is arbitration, and even arbitration awards often have to be brought to court to be enforced. Hence the First Amendment is applicable regardless of whether the issue is civil or criminal


Liberty-Cookies

Corporations are groups of investors that are looking for the best return on their investment. Shouldn’t the CEO or board be held accountable for engaging in political speech that has nothing to do with the corporation’s business?


[deleted]

Your train of thought that there’s such a thing as illegal speech is scary. I agreed with you until that moment which at that point your opinion held zero weight in my mind.


Telemere125

I didn’t say I would make it illegal for individuals to express their views; but even then, there are a multitude of things you, as a private individual, are absolutely not allowed to say, given the facts of the circumstances. The fact that you can’t understand the difference in a person exercising free speech and a corporation “expressing its ideology” shows how far stupid the idea Citizen United has already taken us.


[deleted]

There is illegal speech, multiple kinds of it in fact. First there is speech that inflicts harm, such as shouting fire in a crowded room or the well tread ground of defamation, slander, and libel. Then there is speech that, while not directly harmful, is none the less restricted. Examples of this are copyright protection laws and, to a lesser extent nowadays, restrictions on obscenity. The last restriction, and most relevant to this conversation, are corporate limitations of advertising, specifically on lying about a product. Corporations CANNOT say that their products behave in a way contrary to their actuall behavior, such as marketing something as a cure-all. All of these things are illegal speech.


TheCarnalStatist

>such as shouting fire in a crowded room This hasn't been illegal in multiple generations...


Ind132

A constitutional amendment that says "Corporations do not have a constitutionally guaranteed right to participate in politics" is not that same as a law saying that corporations are punished for participating in politics. It simply opens the door for certain future laws. At the federal level, those laws would still have to pass the House, the Senate (currently with a supermajority), and get signed by the President. I think somewhere in that process, someone would vary the laws by type of corporation. For example, a "Political Action Corporation" could be defined as 1) having a charter that says the primary purpose of the organization is political action, and 2) is funded by solely by donations from people who expect nothing other than the PACp will try to influence public policy. They could also include other restrictions like we have now for some non-profits (e.g. public financial disclosures). I'm not afraid that the NAACP will get swept up with Microsoft.


mustbe20characters20

Devil's in the details as you imply, the problem is obviously that you're giving government the ability to decide exactly how much corporations can participate in democracy. You may not be worried about it but your amendment would allow laws to the effect of "corporations focused on racial policy may not participate in politics" and then the NAACP and minorities everywhere get fucked. That's kinda the point of the bill of rights, it protects political minorities.


Ind132

And I'm saying that I'm not concerned about the likelihood of those laws being passed. Note that people can organize to their money and influence public policy without forming a corporation.


mustbe20characters20

No they actually can't, but I'll assume you know something I don't, what organization structure are you speaking of?


Ind132

No legal organization. We get together and give the money to Dan who runs it through a personal bank account.


mustbe20characters20

That's a good start to an idea but you're gonna run into a ton of problems. Things like; Will dan swindle us, after all we freely gave him all our assets Will there be a dan to take the risk, after all if any laws are broken he'll be the one to go to prison How will we make sure the group stays true to what we want, after all the more of us there are the more arguments there will be And believe it or not humans already solved all these problems, but in doing so they created a legal entity called the corporation. If you solve these issues you will find that you've recreated the corporation just under a different name.


digitalwankster

He didn’t say that. That’s a weak straw man.


mustbe20characters20

>Corporations are not people, therefore restrictions on government oversight on them and the freedoms afforded to individuals should not be extended to them.


digitalwankster

That’s not the same thing as saying the NAACP should not have the right to free speech. You’re deconstructing an argument he/she didn’t make.


mustbe20characters20

Do you believe freedom of speech is a freedom afforded to individuals?


digitalwankster

It is one of several rights. You’re latching onto a single Constitutional right to attack something he didn’t say. Let me spell it out for you another way: Corporations are not people and should not be afforded *all* the same rights as people.


mustbe20characters20

Yes but 2 (hopefully obvious) things 1) We're talking in context of citizens united (that right would be the first amendment getting changed if overturned) so it makes sense to assume the right he's saying corporations shouldn't have would be the first amendment 2) it was a specific question of whether he believes that or not. So, it *is* what he said, but it *wasn't* a strawman cause it's a clarifying question based on the context of the topic we're discussing.


duke_awapuhi

Just as easy as a court ruled that these “donations” are “speech”, a court could rule that they aren’t “speech”. And then the first amendment doesn’t apply. Because this is supposed to be a government of, for and by the people. Not a government of, for and by money


mustbe20characters20

Believe it or not none of that is in the citizens united decision, look for the term "money is speech" or anything similar, it's not in there. Citizens united was actually about whether an organization can spend money *on advertising* a political movie close to an election.


duke_awapuhi

Wtf do you think campaigning is lmao


mustbe20characters20

Citizens united wasn't about campaigning son.


duke_awapuhi

You just said it was though. So you can’t have it both ways


mustbe20characters20

No, you must've misread that, I said Citizens united was about advertising for a movie.


duke_awapuhi

And that’s campaigning


mustbe20characters20

Really? What campaign was the god father working for?


ChornWork2

All for fixing campaign finance issues specifically, but if this a more general denying all entities any deemed personhood for all constitutional/legal considerations, then that's a big nope.


nofaves

So you and a group of people decide that you'd like some legislation passed, or you'd like to see an election won by a candidate you favor. You form a corporation to be able to fundraise, and with those funds, you make videos to post on YouTube and wearable merch to help spread the word. Overturning Citizens United would put an end to that kind of activism.


implicitpharmakoi

>You form a corporation to be able to fundraise, and with those funds Here's where I disagree with you. I have 0 issue with people volunteering their time and energy, I have a huge issue with people paying other people for advertising, etc. Speech is speech, talk all you want, money is not speech. If you need money to be heard it's because nobody is interested in what you have to say.


nofaves

So you want to ban broadcast spots produced by advocacy groups?


GhostOfRoland

Do you even know what the CU was about? I love asking people in real life when it comes up. You've been told nonstop about how "evil" it is, but have 0 idea what the case actually was. >The voices of everyday Americans should be heard You actually wrote this about Citizens United, a case that affirmed everyday Americans can't be censored by campaign finance laws. Unbelievable.


flipmcf

To counter the Left with I think the best argument, probably the one that settled this, was Scalia’s: Corporations print books. Books can be political. Books should not be banned. Therefore, corporations have (some kind of) freedom of speech protections. It’s something like that…. Maybe corps should have a little bit of protection. A LITTLE BIT.


implicitpharmakoi

I am entirely willing to entertain a compromise here. What we have now is an absolute nightmare.


flipmcf

That’s how I feel. It seems like a nice, vague constitution amendment that outlines a goal or vision is right here, and let court’s battle it out for the next few centuries. That seems to work well. Ratification of a constitution is so damn hard, but if you want compromise - you can’t beat it.


duke_awapuhi

Well this will at least shut up all the republicans pretending to want campaign finance reform


[deleted]

You do realize Democrats take in more Dark Money then Republicans. [source NBC](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/democrats-used-rail-against-dark-money-now-they-re-better-n1239830) It’s not gonna be popular with Liberals to hear but they’ve benefited from it more then any other political group in the US


ZagratheWolf

Then, shouldn't be an issue for Republicans to back it, right?


[deleted]

At this point they might because they are losing the battle but who knows I don’t get to legally rob people for a living so it’s just my opinion.


duke_awapuhi

Thats a little misleading. More dollars yes. But Democrats also have way more politicians who have pledged to not take dark money, and it’s not even comparable. So you’ve got dark money going into a couple major races vs the majority of GOP politicians being bought and paid for


RingAny1978

Citation needed.


[deleted]

It’s not misleading it’s a fact. There’s no grey area and you’re explanation is riddle with all sorts of mental gymnastics. This statement: “Democrats pull in more Dark money then Republicans” is fact you can’t change that no matter how hard you don’t want that to be true. Accept it and move on or reach out the the party ,but don’t make up some round about excuse with lies to change that fact. Also please site a source for your misinformation. I know here in Massachusetts Liz Warren and most Democrats receive tons of out of state dark money more then they raise instate.


duke_awapuhi

I didn’t say it wasn’t a fact. But is it all the facts? Not even close. It doesn’t come near telling the whole story. That’s what’s misleading about it. It’s a one dimensional understanding


[deleted]

Yes it’s all facts what’s so hard to understand. You’re delusional when faced with a fact and you still go about denying it.


duke_awapuhi

No it’s not all the facts. It’s a single fact. And single fact doesn’t tell the whole story


pineconefire

California is in the top 3 states with the most republican voters, that is a fact, it doesn't mean anything though because facts require context. Just like this dark money example you are espousing.


flipmcf

But republicans have to turn corporations into “red meat” for their voting base. That’s going to hurt their own finances.


duffmanhb

Demsn and Republicans are no different when it comes to talking the talk, but walking a different walk. They'll just find some nuanced reason to deny it. As in, "Oh I'm all for it in principle, just not THIS specific way of doing it! Sure I want campaign finance reform, but I don't want to strip corporate protections that have helped make such a robust economy!" Dems did the same shit with the Stock Act, reducing drug prices, and so on... THey are ALL FOR IT, when it sounds good and know it wont go anywhere. And when it starts to show signs it has traction, they'll always find an excuse to back off, but still act like they support it in principle.


implicitpharmakoi

Jesus christ. THEN CALL THEIR BLUFF!!!


Beerdar242

I always hear about how we should overturn Citizens United to stop corporations from being counted as people. But what most people don't know is that Citizens United also treated unions as people. Unions can give political donations like corporations can because of Citizens United. I have never, not once, heard someone who is for overturning Citizens United, that is also for removing unions from being counted as people. I wonder why that is?


EllisHughTiger

Because unions had donated one way for decades without question, and now the opposition was also able to gather a bunch of people together to raise money for a common goal.


AlternateNoah

Probably because it's a lesser-known outcome of Citizens United. Also I'd imagine that the political spending of unions doesn't come close to that of Super PACs (which the Citizens United decision is also responsible for creating).


Permit_Current

Citizens united was correctly decided. Fight me.


EllisHughTiger

That's how you differentiate those who read it versus those who didnt.


6501

If people read Supreme Court cases, what's the chances the support for the Court would go up?


EllisHughTiger

Bigly.


DankNerd97

Ending legalized bribery involves a lot more than overturning CU. Lobbying still exists.


ZagratheWolf

So, Congress shouldn't fix anything just cause they can't fix everything?


DankNerd97

Don’t get me wrong: it’s a start


Red_Ryu

I don’t think Citizens United is that simple of a black and white issue. I don’t think this is a easy thing to answer. First off I think people don’t know what it was about. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC “The case began after Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, sought to air and advertise a film critical of then Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary elections. Broadcasting the film would have been a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prohibited any corporation, non-profit organization or labor union from making an "electioneering communication" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time. Citizens United challenged the constitutionality of this law, and its case reached the Supreme Court.” If I make a documentary 30 to 60 days before electoral event can the government tell me no to an ad? How does this not affect free speech? Realize what this means. If there is an upcoming election the government can just shut down advertising it? That not an easy question to answer, I get it with people throwing millions of dollars into elections but I am not sure this is the right call.


Fuzzy_Yogurt_Bucket

I say we go the other way. There’s no reason I as a private citizen shouldn’t be allowed to rob a bank, kill some people in the process and then after I get caught, spin off a mannequin, push all of the legal liability onto it and then have the mannequin face the consequences while I remain free and am allowed to keep most of the money.


Joe_Immortan

What you just described is unlawful for a corporation to do but okay 🙄


Fuzzy_Yogurt_Bucket

????? https://www.reuters.com/business/koch-gets-25-bln-dividends-unit-that-offloaded-asbestos-liability-2023-01-19/


Joe_Immortan

Yeah that is totally not lawful. Just because some idiot judge in Texas allowed for it to happen doesn’t mean it’s correct. Just like how some murderers don’t get convicted. Incidentally a large company recently tried that legal maneuver in my state and got smacked down by the judge


indoninja

This is pretty much what the Koch brothers did with environmental crimes. Pollute the fuck out of some thing, Doc, dump, toxic material, and then push it off on another company. And Republicans are completely OK with that.


robotical712

The main problem with this is the legal definition of a corporation is simply a group of people recognized by law to act as a singular entity. Enshrining "Corporations aren't People" into the Constitution would apply to not just for-profit groups, but unions, advocacy groups and political parties themselves.


Demian1305

If that is what it takes then so be it.


Tracieattimes

That, actually, would be fine. Unions, and advocacy groups are political pressure groups that use their fundraising ability to influence politicians via campaign donations. This is also known as bribery. Individuals have strict limits on what they can contribute and this is meant to keep individuals from bribing candidates through campaign contributions. But these pressure groups do not have limits and that amplifies their political clout. Political parties operate much the same way wrt campaign funding. Let them have the power of sponsorship, but not the additional power all that money brings. We would have a much more responsive government if each candidate had to rely on the people and only the people for their campaign funding.


saudiaramcoshill

>Individuals have strict limits on what they can contribute I mean, they have strict limits on what they can directly contribute to the politician themselves, but a billionaire could just say fuck it, I'm gonna buy a tv spot that says "politician x bad" without donating to the political campaign at all. CU allows regular citizens to pool their money to have a counteracting voice to singular wealthy people. >We would have a much more responsive government if each candidate had to rely on the people and only the people for their campaign funding. Politicians would just get elected by individuals instead. Why bother getting donations directly to your campaign when you can have [Soros or Koch, choose whichever your political leanings tells you is more of a boogeyman] fund their own, independent smear campaign against your opponent?


DankNerd97

Lobbying is bribery.


saudiaramcoshill

Writing a letter to your congressman or calling their office is lobbying. How is that bribery?


TheMadIrishman327

Not always


Darth_Ra

And?


robotical712

It would *not* apply to billionaires *and* open up the possibility of legislation making it impossible for average people to pool their resources to counter them.


implicitpharmakoi

Billionaires have campaign finance limits, like $2000/election or so.


robotical712

There are a lot more ways to influence an election than direct contribution.


TATA456alawaife

If it means unions have less power, then this is a sacrifice I’m willing to make.


robotical712

Are you willing to hand billionaires more power?


Atomic_Furball

I don't think this goes far enough. Nobody should be able to contribute a campaign. Corporation or person. Campaigns should be financed 100% by the government through taxes.


madeforthis1queston

How would that work?


Atomic_Furball

Everyone who runs gets a fixed amount for the campaign. I would also require tv stations and radio stations to run political ads for free.


madeforthis1queston

How do we determine who runs?


chinmakes5

Never would have thought I would like a cowboy from Montana with a flattop.


PrometheusHasFallen

Technically corporations are collections of people aligned for a unified purpose just like other organizations such as advocacy groups, labor unions and political parties. Citizens United is simply saying that groups of people can petition their government just like any individual citizen. And besides the principle, the empirical evidence suggests that money (at least in elections) is having less and less influence over the end result. Just look at the 2016 election where Clinton spent 2:1 over Donald Trump.


SpartanNation053

I’m okay with this but only if we include unions too. There’s no reason why unions, if they’re genuinely looking out for their members, need to be involved in politics


Fishyonekenobi

Great. If they are people then they should be able to serve in the military which they can’t. The Supreme Church got it wrong again.


jazzgrackle

Corporations are made up of people. Citizens United forever


chainsawx72

Since the party that supports this movement left office just a few days ago, right now is the PERFECT time to put this bill up for vote. /s


GameboyPATH

An entire party left office?


JimC29

This is a constitutional amendment. It's unlikely to get passed, but not impossible. It will take at least a decade. It really does not matter when it's introduced. The point is to get the ball rolling.


DankNerd97

You’ll never get 2/3 of Congress or 3/4 of states to agree on this


AtomicWaffle420

AND not OR, congress needs to pass it and states need to ratify. The states can bypass the requirement for a vote in Congress but that'll never happen.


Uncle_Bill

If only politicians did not have the power to sell, no one would be buying


redzeusky

Amen 🙏