For or against a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United

Started by jimmy olsen, July 21, 2014, 08:34:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Would you support an amendment to the U.S. constitution to limit the influence of money on elections

For
30 (68.2%)
Against
10 (22.7%)
Other
4 (9.1%)

Total Members Voted: 43

MadImmortalMan

Question:

Would such an amendment be the first mention of the concept of a corporation in the Constitution?

I'm not sure I want to codify that one way or the other in a permanent way right now.
"Stability is destabilizing." --Hyman Minsky

"Complacency can be a self-denying prophecy."
"We have nothing to fear but lack of fear itself." --Larry Summers

Ed Anger

Stay Alive...Let the Man Drive

alfred russel

Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2014, 12:13:14 AM

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.

I've read the opinion that for profit organizations, seeking to maximize shareholder value as their mission, don't deserve protection. But if you go to actual mission statements, that is not what many for profit organizations (at least formally) have as their primary purpose. For example, google's is to "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." In google's case, I think they have been more effective at that mission than turning a profit for shareowners (though they have obviously been successful there too), and I doubt they would be so successful at their mission as a non profit.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

MadImmortalMan

"Stability is destabilizing." --Hyman Minsky

"Complacency can be a self-denying prophecy."
"We have nothing to fear but lack of fear itself." --Larry Summers

Ideologue

Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2014, 10:02:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2014, 12:13:14 AM

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.

I've read the opinion that for profit organizations, seeking to maximize shareholder value as their mission, don't deserve protection. But if you go to actual mission statements, that is not what many for profit organizations (at least formally) have as their primary purpose. For example, google's is to "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." In google's case, I think they have been more effective at that mission than turning a profit for shareowners (though they have obviously been successful there too), and I doubt they would be so successful at their mission as a non profit.

I probably ought to have said commercial.  You're absolutely right. :)
Kinemalogue
Current reviews: The 'Burbs (9/10); Gremlins 2: The New Batch (9/10); John Wick: Chapter 2 (9/10); A Cure For Wellness (4/10)

Ideologue

Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2014, 09:23:27 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 24, 2014, 09:12:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2014, 07:16:21 PM
QuoteUnfortunately I'm 26, kinda pushing the "young" angle.

:lol:

No, he's got it straight.  I wish I'd known when I was 26 that 30 was the new 40.  He's got four years and I think he'll make them count a bit better.

You're reaching Gral levels.

It's also, ironically, the new 20.
Kinemalogue
Current reviews: The 'Burbs (9/10); Gremlins 2: The New Batch (9/10); John Wick: Chapter 2 (9/10); A Cure For Wellness (4/10)

chipwich

Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2014, 07:16:21 PM
Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 05:25:08 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 24, 2014, 05:23:07 PM
Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 05:20:08 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 24, 2014, 05:18:30 PM
Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 05:14:14 PM
Of course corporations have a right to self-defense. Why do you think banks have guards with guns?


Chipwich, how are you doing ?   :)

I'm 26, kinda pushing the "

I',m feeling alright, even though I am in Ide-esque unemployment

Don't worry, you're young, something will workout and you still have plenty of opportunities(time).

Unfortunately I'm 26, kinda pushing the "young" angle.

:lol:

I wish i knew what you're trying to communicate :blush:

Razgovory

I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

grumbler

Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2014, 03:58:03 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2014, 03:44:50 PM
Human rights are a postulate.  There is no way to prove them to be true.  However, they aren't a legal fiction, in the sense that corporations are.  Corporations are created by law; human rights, by postulate (they predate law). 

The origins of law are prehistoric. You can't authoritatively state that human rights predate law, because some version of law apparently predated recorded history.

Also, concepts of human rights have radically changed through time. The concept of human rights may be quite old, but rights as we know them (freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc.) are quite recent.

You might want to look up "postulate" before you go further down his road.  ;)
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

mongers

"We have it in our power to begin the world over again"

garbon

"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

alfred russel

Quote from: grumbler on July 25, 2014, 07:07:31 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2014, 03:58:03 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2014, 03:44:50 PM
Human rights are a postulate.  There is no way to prove them to be true.  However, they aren't a legal fiction, in the sense that corporations are.  Corporations are created by law; human rights, by postulate (they predate law). 

The origins of law are prehistoric. You can't authoritatively state that human rights predate law, because some version of law apparently predated recorded history.

Also, concepts of human rights have radically changed through time. The concept of human rights may be quite old, but rights as we know them (freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc.) are quite recent.

You might want to look up "postulate" before you go further down his road.  ;)

I know what a postulate is.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: chipwich on July 24, 2014, 05:33:41 PM
If the corporation does not have rights it cannot sue the government when those rights are violated.

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.

One of the cases LaCroix cites -- Pierce - makes this same point.  Justice McReynolds actually holds that corporations strictly speaking have no rights under the 14th Amendment.  Nonetheless because they have property interests entitled to protection under law they do have standing to sue for deprivation of property.

QuoteI'm not familiar with Austin (which apparently has been overturned). I am familiar with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Company_v._Commissioner which states that corpotations can sue for damages under the first amendment.

The case says absolutely nothing about corporate "rights".

It's certainly true that corporations have standing to challenge unconstitutional actions by the government.  It was true in Bellotti, it was true in just about every First Amendment press case ever brought. You could easily find hundreds of cases for that proposition.

To repeat myself for about the 4th time in this thread, it is unquestionable that the mere fact that speech is attributable to a corporation does not mean the speech is beyond First Amendment protection.  That is what all those cases cited in Citizens United actually stand for - that, and nothing more than that.  It is precisely in line with Yi's quite logical intuition that "corporate speech" might implicate the rights of individuals and therefore be protectable.  And once again - one could, as a kind of imprecise shorthand - refer to have corporations having "rights" in the sense that may they have standing to sue in Court to redress violations that impact either on the constitutional rights of individuals or on their property interests protected by state law.   But to take the next step and say that the corporation itself has constitutional rights is an error; even McReynolds, hardly the sharpest tool in the judicial barrel, understood that basic distinction.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

derspiess

"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

LaCroix

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 25, 2014, 09:25:12 AMBut to take the next step and say that the corporation itself has constitutional rights is an error; even McReynolds, hardly the sharpest tool in the judicial barrel, understood that basic distinction.

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

and, the point of pierce was to show how it has been interpreted concerning this area of law. it's been 80+ years since mcreynolds wrote pierce. it doesn't matter what pierce said then, but how the courts interpreted it afterward. you asked where i got that quote - bellotti in 1978.