For or against a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United

[DontSayBanana]

no. i don't think knee jerk constitutional amendments to SCOTUS decisions is generally a good idea, especially not here

I think you're using knee jerk a little liberally in this case.  I agree with grumbler's assertion that it should state corporations are only persons to the extent necessary to enforce their usage.  I disagree with him, however, that we can trust common sense to prevail.  While there seems to be widespread agreement that CU was the worst possible decision that could have come from that case, for it to be corrected and struck, we need another case to come into play, go through the whole appeals process, and have certiorari granted by a future term of the USSC.

There are enough variables at play there that I'd rather see the amendment process go through- that way, the courts can fall back on the letter of the law instead of the USSC's warped interpretation of the spirit of the law.

[derspiess]

The title and poll questions are different.  I'd say "no" to the general question asked in the poll, since such an amendment would not likely be perfect, and you'd lock the change into the constitution, rather than into  statute, where it can be tweaked.

Yeah I voted yes but really to the title and not the poll question.

I read it after I voted on it as well.

Well, duh.  Just like how you need to pass laws before you read them or let anyone know the details.

[garbon]

The title and poll questions are different.  I'd say "no" to the general question asked in the poll, since such an amendment would not likely be perfect, and you'd lock the change into the constitution, rather than into  statute, where it can be tweaked.

Yeah I voted yes but really to the title and not the poll question.

I read it after I voted on it as well.

Well, duh.  Just like how you need to pass laws before you read them or let anyone know the details.

I'd read Tim's poll question but disregarded it.

[derspiess]

I haven't had my coffee yet.

[Ideologue]

When I wanted to change the constitution, I was a totalitarian.

I did vote yes, tho.

[Admiral Yi]

I would need to know the unintended consequences of the amendment first.

[derspiess]

I would need to know the unintended consequences of the amendment first.

An amendment like that would be unconstitutional.

[Valmy]

I want to know all the unknown unknowns.

[LaCroix]

I think you're using knee jerk a little liberally in this case.  I agree with grumbler's assertion that it should state corporations are only persons to the extent necessary to enforce their usage.  I disagree with him, however, that we can trust common sense to prevail.  While there seems to be widespread agreement that CU was the worst possible decision that could have come from that case, for it to be corrected and struck, we need another case to come into play, go through the whole appeals process, and have certiorari granted by a future term of the USSC.

There are enough variables at play there that I'd rather see the amendment process go through- that way, the courts can fall back on the letter of the law instead of the USSC's warped interpretation of the spirit of the law.

i don't think i am. people blame the court, but it was a natural occurrence with how american culture treats corporations. corporations are everywhere and are a huge part of our lives, and the shift has been happening for a long time. if this changes, so will the court, which will also intervene if it deems necessary. exaggerated hypotheticals don't convince me

[The Minsky Moment]

You mean an exaggerated hypothetical like a court ruling that a corporation could invoke a right to exercise its own religious beliefs?

Of course such an absurdity could never  happen.

[Berkut]

Most of the time I just don't think about it, but about once or twice a week it kind of hits me how incredibly ridiculous these decisions really are.

A corporation has Rights. I mean, actual *Rights*, like the things we revere, hold sacred, God given, etc., etc., THOSE rights.

The USSC actually decided that a legal entity that has been created through the works of man for strictly financial purposes...has rights.

It is simply...boggling. It goes beyond belief that anyone could possibly come to that conclusion.

[Ideologue]

Well, some organizations have to have rights, otherwise their constituent members would be unable to exercise theirs.

I've actually started to lean away from limited liability entities being able to claim First Amendment rights.  I don't think it's an insane interpretation of the First Amendment, but I'm not as adamant as I used to be about CU being a good decision.

I thought the Hobby Lobby one was dumb.

[Admiral Yi]

I must be missing something very basic and very important, because I still don't see how Citizens or Hobby have anything to do with granting corporations rights or personhood.  I thought they were both based on the logic that individual rights are not diminished when acting through the corporate form.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yi- let's say you are correct

Then in Citizens United you would expect to see a discussion about the speech rights of some individuals and how a restraint applied to a corporation would affect them.  Or about how the restraints on corporate speech would impact more generally on public access to discussion or debate or the dissemination of ideas.  But there is no such discussion in Citizens United, other than to say that "by suppressing the speech . . . of corporations . . . the Government prevents their voices [sic] . . from reaching the public" which is both rather silly and simply states the conclusion.  Earlier, the Court states its holding flatly: "First Amendment protection extends to corporations."

If the Court meant something more subtle it certainly didn't express that.

[LaCroix]

You mean an exaggerated hypothetical like a court ruling that a corporation could invoke a right to exercise its own religious beliefs?

no, i mean the impact

Yi- let's say you are correct

Then in Citizens United you would expect to see a discussion about the speech rights of some individuals and how a restraint applied to a corporation would affect them.  Or about how the restraints on corporate speech would impact more generally on public access to discussion or debate or the dissemination of ideas.  But there is no such discussion in Citizens United, other than to say that "by suppressing the speech . . . of corporations . . . the Government prevents their voices [sic] . . from reaching the public" which is both rather silly and simply states the conclusion.  Earlier, the Court states its holding flatly: "First Amendment protection extends to corporations."

If the Court meant something more subtle it certainly didn't express that.

...yes it did. 

i put in bold the words you quoted

"There is simply no support for the view that the First Amendment, as originally understood, would permit the suppression of political speech by media corporations. The Framers may not have anticipated modern business and media corporations. Yet television networks and major newspapers owned by media corporations have become the most important means of mass communication in modern times. The First Amendment was certainly not understood to condone the suppression of political speech in society's most salient media. It was understood as a response to the repression of speech and the press that had existed in England and the heavy taxes on the press that were imposed in the colonies. The great debates between the Federalists and the Anti–Federalists over our founding document were published and expressed in the most important means of mass communication of that era—newspapers owned by individuals.

Austin interferes with the "open marketplace" of ideas protected by the First Amendment. It permits the Government to ban the political speech of millions of associations of citizens. (5.8 million for-profit corporations filed 2006 tax returns). Most of these are small corporations without large amounts of wealth. (96% of the 3 million businesses that belong to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have fewer than 100 employees); (more than 75% of corporations whose income is taxed under federal law, see 26 U.S.C. § 301, have less than $1 million in receipts per year). This fact belies the Government's argument that the statute is justified on the ground that it prevents the "distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth." It is not even aimed at amassed wealth.

The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach. The Government has "muffle[d] the voices that best represent the most significant segments of the economy." And "the electorate [has been] deprived of information, knowledge and opinion vital to its function." By suppressing the speech of manifold corporations, both for-profit and nonprofit, the Government prevents their voices and viewpoints from reaching the public and advising voters on which persons or entities are hostile to their interests. Factions will necessarily form in our Republic, but the remedy of "destroying the liberty" of some factions is "worse than the disease." Factions should be checked by permitting them all to speak and by entrusting the people to judge what is true and what is false.

Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310, 353-55 (2010) (internal citation and some quotation omitted).

as for your "First Amendment protection extends to corporations" quote, you didn't even indicate that too was cherry-picked! and, that's not a holding by the Citizens United court, but rather an already established rule

The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations. Bellotti, supra, at 778, n. 14, 98 S.Ct. 1407 (citing Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85, 97 S.Ct. 1614, 52 L.Ed.2d 155 (1977); Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448, 96 S.Ct. 958, 47 L.Ed.2d 154 (1976); Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 95 S.Ct. 2561, 45 L.Ed.2d 648 (1975); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 95 S.Ct. 1239, 43 L.Ed.2d 448 (1975); Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 95 S.Ct. 1029, 43 L.Ed.2d 328 (1975); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 94 S.Ct. 2831, 41 L.Ed.2d 730 (1974); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 91 S.Ct. 2140, 29 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971) (per curiam); Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 87 S.Ct. 534, 17 L.Ed.2d 456 (1967); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686; Kingsley Int'l Pictures Corp.  **900 v. Regents of Univ. of N. Y., 360 U.S. 684, 79 S.Ct. 1362, 3 L.Ed.2d 1512 (1959); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 72 S.Ct. 777, 96 L.Ed. 1098 (1952)); see, e.g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180, 117 S.Ct. 1174, 137 L.Ed.2d 369 (1997); Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727, 116 S.Ct. 2374, 135 L.Ed.2d 888 (1996); Turner, 512 U.S. 622, 114 S.Ct. 2445, 129 L.Ed.2d 497; Simon & Schuster, 502 U.S. 105, 112 S.Ct. 501, 116 L.Ed.2d 476; Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 109 S.Ct. 2829, 106 L.Ed.2d 93 (1989); Florida Star v. B.J. F., 491 U.S. 524, 109 S.Ct. 2603, 105 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 106 S.Ct. 1558, 89 L.Ed.2d 783 (1986); Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 98 S.Ct. 1535, 56 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 96 S.Ct. 2440, 49 L.Ed.2d 310 (1976); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974); Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 90 S.Ct. 1537, 26 L.Ed.2d 6 (1970).

Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310, 342 (2010)