For or against a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United

[Eddie Teach]

After you hit 30, 26 looks really young.

I wasn't exactly communicating that as I've not hit 30.

Stop procrastinating.

[LaCroix]

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.

So many entities are limited liability though. Churches, charities, unions...We've created a legal environment where limited liability is the rule and on practical grounds needed for any type of large organization.

the more i read about the judicial history behind corporate rights, it becomes clear citizens united was just another step forward. some may dislike the decision and possible consequences, but it makes sense

[Razgovory]

After you hit 30, 26 looks really young.

I wasn't exactly communicating that as I've not hit 30.

So, how many years have you been 29?

[The Minsky Moment]

citizens united didn't do anything differently, though. you acknowledge what "corporate rights" are. citizens united simply extended another right to individual people

Let's try this another way.

Before Citizens United was decided there has been over 100 years of legislation placing special restrictions on corporations in connection with political activities.  These were by and large uncontroversial and bipartisan - the Teddy Roosevelt administration sponsored the first one; Nixon signed FECA in the 70s, and the very law challenged by Citizens United was sponsored by McCain and Feingold and signed into law by Bush.  If these laws involved obvious violations of constitutional rights, it is passing strange that legislators and presidents from both parties spent a century engaging in such blatant offenses.

For the same 100 years the Supreme Court decided many cases reviewing such laws.  In many cases, the laws were upheld, in a few cases parts of the law were struck down or limited.  In EVERY case before Citizens United, the following 2 propositions were unquestioned and routinely applied:

1). The fact that a corporation is the source of some expression or "expressive act" does not in itself make the First Amendment inapplicable.

2) The fact that a corporation is the source of some expression or "expressive act" is relevant to a First Amendment analysis.  In particular, such speech is accorded less protection and corporate and other entities are treated differently from individuals.  The reason why, as the Court explained in Beaumont is that "corporation's First Amendment speech and association interests* are derived largely from those of their members and of the public in receiving their information."

* note the careful use of language in a passage that is specific to the "rights" question.

Proposition 1 is consistent either with a doctrine of corporate constitutional rights or the lack of such rights.  It is agnostic as that question.

Proposition 2, however, is not agnostic.  It is inconsistent with the notion that a corporation is a "person" with rights under the Constitution.  If the latter notion were true, then it would not be possible to say that corporate expression could be accorded discriminatory treatment.  Propositions 1 and 2 only make sense together if one assumes - like Yi in his comment in this thread or like the Supreme Court a few years back in Beaumont that what needs to be protected is not corporate expression as such, but rather the rights of the individual members of the corporate association and the listening public.

The significance of Citizens United is that it blew up proposition 2.  It says unequivocally that speech restrictions can't be based in any respect on the corporate identity of the "speaker"
That is not continuity.  It is not evolution.  It is not a minor gloss.
It is a true revolution in this particular area of law, a ruling without any precedent in all of American constitutional history, and one that contradicts  decisions going back over a century.

Citizens United this can't be squared with the traditional view - the Yi/Beaumont view - that the true basis for corporate expression protection relates to the impact on individual stakeholders and listeners.  It only makes sense if one posits that corporations are "people" not only for the limited purposes authorized under state law, but for all purposes, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.

That position as many have observed makes no sense, and has already tripped the Court up badly in Hobby Lobby.

[grumbler]

the more i read about the judicial history behind corporate rights, it becomes clear citizens united was just another step forward. some may dislike the decision and possible consequences, but it makes sense

And the more I read about it, the more convinced I am that it is the Dred Scott decision of our times, due to be used as an example of USSC incompetence for a hundred years.  Of course, that's in line with my belief that humans have rights even if there is no law given them powers to protect those rights.  If one believes, as you do, that rights only exist when a government consents to them, then your view of CU makes more sense; if corporations had no First Amendment rights before the CU case started, they certainly did after the USSC gave them to them, so the question of corporate rights (at least, those rights so far given to corporations by the court) is, today, moot (until a future version court overturns them, of course).

[The Minsky Moment]

Which brings me to the subject of the thread - I would oppose the amendment on the same basic grounds as grumbler.

My read is that the Court now recognizes that Citizens United was an embarassment and doctrinally unsound.  One can already see the Court fighting the rearguard action on this in Hobby Lobby - on the logic of CU, why on earth should widely held corporations not have the same rights as closely held corps?  Alito's decision only makes sense on the logic of Beaumont

So most likely CU will not have huge impact because even its proponents on the Court seem to be sounding the retreat.

[garbon]

After you hit 30, 26 looks really young.

I wasn't exactly communicating that as I've not hit 30.

So, how many years have you been 29?

I don't turn 29 till this fall.

[crazy canuck]

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.

So many entities are limited liability though. Churches, charities, unions...We've created a legal environment where limited liability is the rule and on practical grounds needed for any type of large organization.

the more i read about the judicial history behind corporate rights, it becomes clear citizens united was just another step forward. some may dislike the decision and possible consequences, but it makes sense

It is interesting that you see over 100 years of jurisprudence being turned on its head as just another step.  To put it more plainly every jurisdiction in the Western World (including the US up until now) has recognized the limited rights of corporations and have expressly held they are different from those rights enjoyed by people.

Here is a relevant exerpt from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Irwin Toy.

That is, read as a whole, it appears to us that this section was intended to confer protection on a singularly human level.  A plain, common sense reading of the phrase "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person" serves to underline the human element involved; only human beings can enjoy these rights.  "Everyone" then, must be read in light of the rest of the section and defined to exclude corporations and other artificial entities incapable of enjoying life, liberty or security of the person, and include only human beings.

[MadImmortalMan]

If these laws involved obvious violations of constitutional rights, it is passing strange that legislators and presidents from both parties spent a century engaging in such blatant offenses.

I don't find that strange at all. Allow me to introduce you to the US Congress. 

[LaCroix]

citizens united didn't do anything differently, though. you acknowledge what "corporate rights" are. citizens united simply extended another right to individual people

Let's try this another way.

Before Citizens United was decided there has been over 100 years of legislation placing special restrictions on corporations in connection with political activities.  These were by and large uncontroversial and bipartisan - the Teddy Roosevelt administration sponsored the first one; Nixon signed FECA in the 70s, and the very law challenged by Citizens United was sponsored by McCain and Feingold and signed into law by Bush.  If these laws involved obvious violations of constitutional rights, it is passing strange that legislators and presidents from both parties spent a century engaging in such blatant offenses.

For the same 100 years the Supreme Court decided many cases reviewing such laws.  In many cases, the laws were upheld, in a few cases parts of the law were struck down or limited.  In EVERY case before Citizens United, the following 2 propositions were unquestioned and routinely applied:

1). The fact that a corporation is the source of some expression or "expressive act" does not in itself make the First Amendment inapplicable.

2) The fact that a corporation is the source of some expression or "expressive act" is relevant to a First Amendment analysis.  In particular, such speech is accorded less protection and corporate and other entities are treated differently from individuals.  The reason why, as the Court explained in Beaumont is that "corporation's First Amendment speech and association interests* are derived largely from those of their members and of the public in receiving their information."

* note the careful use of language in a passage that is specific to the "rights" question.

Proposition 1 is consistent either with a doctrine of corporate constitutional rights or the lack of such rights.  It is agnostic as that question.

Proposition 2, however, is not agnostic.  It is inconsistent with the notion that a corporation is a "person" with rights under the Constitution.  If the latter notion were true, then it would not be possible to say that corporate expression could be accorded discriminatory treatment.  Propositions 1 and 2 only make sense together if one assumes - like Yi in his comment in this thread or like the Supreme Court a few years back in Beaumont that what needs to be protected is not corporate expression as such, but rather the rights of the individual members of the corporate association and the listening public.

The significance of Citizens United is that it blew up proposition 2.  It says unequivocally that speech restrictions can't be based in any respect on the corporate identity of the "speaker"
That is not continuity.  It is not evolution.  It is not a minor gloss.
It is a true revolution in this particular area of law, a ruling without any precedent in all of American constitutional history, and one that contradicts  decisions going back over a century.

Citizens United this can't be squared with the traditional view - the Yi/Beaumont view - that the true basis for corporate expression protection relates to the impact on individual stakeholders and listeners.  It only makes sense if one posits that corporations are "people" not only for the limited purposes authorized under state law, but for all purposes, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.

That position as many have observed makes no sense, and has already tripped the Court up badly in Hobby Lobby.

to your first point, there have been laws on political speech by corporations overturned by SCOTUS. look at buckley

The First Amendment denies government the power to determine that spending to promote one's political views is wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In the free society ordained by our Constitution it is not the government, but the people individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political committees who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign.

For these reasons we hold that § 608(c) is constitutionally invalid. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 57 (1976)

buckley then went on to overturn a number of political campaign restrictions. that's just one example.

to the rest of your argument, is this a fair summary - before citizens united, it was recognized corporations had limited rights to political speech, but now citizens united has extended those rights to political speech? that doesn't contradict what i said. it's a logical step. if courts are holding all over the place that corporations have some first amendment rights, then it's not revolutionary to extend what corporations already had. it sounds like the austin-line cases were actually a momentary step back, now corrected with citizens united

Citizens United this can't be squared with the traditional view - the Yi/Beaumont view - that the true basis for corporate expression protection relates to the impact on individual stakeholders and listeners.  It only makes sense if one posits that corporations are "people" not only for the limited purposes authorized under state law, but for all purposes, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.

this is wrong. the court does not say corporations are to be considered people and enjoy every right of individuals. the court says "The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech." this is because some corporations were allowed to campaign without certain restrictions while other corporations weren't. some political ads were fine while other ads weren't. citizens united is saying it makes no sense to restrict some people from campaigning, but allow it for other people based off how those people decided to collectivize. if people wish to politically campaign, they should be able to no matter how they charter their corporation.

corporations have rights because individual people have the right to group with one another and express themselves. citizens united did not change this, despite your "it only makes sense that it did" comment. citizens united extended individual rights - the right to collectively politically campaign through a corporation without certain restrictions. you may think citizens united held corporations are people, but that's a big miss-characterization.

[Ideologue]

After you hit 30, 26 looks really young.

I wasn't exactly communicating that as I've not hit 30.

So, how many years have you been 29?

I don't turn 29 till this fall.

And what business do you have, kid, telling me 31 ain't old?

[garbon]

After you hit 30, 26 looks really young.

I wasn't exactly communicating that as I've not hit 30.

So, how many years have you been 29?

I don't turn 29 till this fall.

And what business do you have, kid, telling me 31 ain't old?

Because it isn't. I know old.

[chipwich]

A corporation has statutory powers delegated by the legislature.  Those include the power to hold and dispose of property in its own name and to sue and be sued in the courts.  So yes in that sense the corporation has rights, but only to the extent the state legislature has brought them into being by positive law.

This is incredible. I've never read the Star-Tribune's corporate charter, but I seriously doubt that it reads that the Star-Tribune only has some constitutional rights, say press, trial by jury, protection for Acts of Attainder, while not having protection of assembly, search by warrant, or protection from quartering.

But to take the next step and say that the corporation itself has constitutional rights is an error

Your having repeated this does not make it true.

Do you sincerely believe that if the Star-Tribune's charter does not mention having protection from quartering or search and seizure, it can be searched at any time and the army can just move into it's offices with no recourse?

[grumbler]

Do you sincerely believe that if the Star-Tribune's charter does not mention having protection from quartering or search and seizure, it can be searched at any time and the army can just move into it's offices with no recourse?

Are you arguing that only the constitutional amendments' protections against quartering or search and seizure prevent this from  happening?  I'd bet that the Star-Tribune can be searched, or the Army can take over its offices, under some conditions (admittedly, I cannot give an example at the moment, but the hypothetical seems there, despite your protestations otherwise).

[Razgovory]

Who is the Star Tribune going to assemble with?  It's not an actual person.  It has no body.  I would go further and say the Star Tribune can not run for office or register to vote.  Like wise it can't register with selective service or be drafted nor can it serve on a jury.