Wall Street protesters: We're in for the long haul

[fhdz]

All right, you primitive screwheads...

[Ed Anger]

All right, you primitive screwheads...

I know what I'm watching tonight.

[Ideologue]

But what does it mean to say that?  To what extent is it meaningful to say that an articial entity has speech rights above and beyond the rights of those human beings who act on behalf on the entity?  A piece of paper in a Delaware clerk's office or a headquarters building can't have speech rights.

Of course a corporation is a fiction, but so to the same degree is any other voluntary association.  Any association will speak through its agents.  Why should a corporation be treated differently than a non-profit or union--or political party--in this regard?  (In other regards, that do not or only minimally impact speech rights, they of course can be treated differently.)

The corporate form's function as a creature of statute is not in dispute, but that status was not invented to provide to associations the privilege of limited liability and to regulate those associations' commercial interchange, not their social and political interchange.

And for what it's worth, a tremendous amount of political speech emanates from corporations in the form of cinema, literature, comics, news organizations, etc, and form a vital part of American discourse (and industry).  The idea that corporations have no right to political speech poses a severe threat to the arts.  Citizens United involved a movie that was reportedly little more than a long, probably very boring attack ad, but in no way do I want government to decide what constitutes "acceptable" political filmmaking.  Kennedy was right when he wrote that this was an impossible and improper distinction to make.

In that regard, I see no logical incoherence here.  An association of people is still people, and it is those people who speak through a corporation's agents, not a filing with the Delaware secretary of state.  If those views are severely distorted through the corporate form, that's an issue of corporate governance; and to some degree any associational statement will distort or even contradict the views of some or many of its individual members, by necessity.

P.S. Even though we disagree (although from your last para, perhaps not fundamentally), it's nice to talk about this with someone who's not a bit of a lunatic.

[Malthus]

P.S. Even though we disagree (although from your last para, perhaps not fundamentally), it's nice to talk about this with someone who's not a bit of a lunatic.

That's why I talk with myself so regularly. 

Oh, wait, there's a flaw with that ... 

[fhdz]

That's why I talk with myself so regularly. 

Oh, wait, there's a flaw with that ... 

[The Minsky Moment]

Of course a corporation is a fiction, but so to the same degree is any other voluntary association.  Any association will speak through its agents.  Why should a corporation be treated differently than a non-profit or union--or political party--in this regard?  (In other regards, that do not or only minimally impact speech rights, they of course can be treated differently.)

It shouldn't - the same analysis applies.

And for what it's worth, a tremendous amount of political speech emanates from corporations in the form of cinema, literature, comics, news organizations, etc, and form a vital part of American discourse (and industry).  The idea that corporations have no right to political speech poses a severe threat to the arts.  Citizens United involved a movie that was reportedly little more than a long, probably very boring attack ad, but in no way do I want government to decide what constitutes "acceptable" political filmmaking.  Kennedy was right when he wrote that this was an impossible and improper distinction to make.

The speech does not emanate from the corporation, it emanates from its agents.  So the only relevant question that needs to be asked is the extent to which a corporation can be sanctioned for those speech acts.  And the relevant inquiry in answering that question is whether and to what extent such regulation would infringe upon the speech rights of the human agents.

So, for example, the "malice" standard for libel as relates to public figures can be invoked by a newspaper corporation if a lawsuit is brought against the corporation.  This is not because the corporation itself has "personal" free speech rights.  It is because the communicative rights of the reporter, the publisher and the readers of the publication would be compromised if the corporation were not given standing to invoke those individual rights as if it were its own.  Put that way, the appropriate analysis is what legal defenses should be available to the corporation to protect the individual rights of those associated with it in some way.

With respect to a newspaper, effective communication in our times requires that publishers be able to deploy numerous reporters, investigators, bureaus, equipment etc and thus the ability to conduct those activities in corporate form bears a direct relationship with the ability to generate certain kinds of protected speech activity.  But that is not true of cash contributions to political candidates.  That is something that can be effectively carried out individually, and the ability to make contributions on a corporate basis does not in any discernible way enhance the nature or quality of that communication, or compromise the ability of affiliated individuals to make that communication, unless the true objective is quid quo pro bribery, which is not protected speech.

The next question then is how to handle a more nuanced fact pattern, like the attack edutainment infomercial at issue in Citizens United, but that just involves the same kind of line drawing that courts engage in all the time with respect to non-corporate speech cases.

[crazy canuck]

So where would you stand on advertising JR?

[The Minsky Moment]

So where would you stand on advertising JR?

'

Commerical speech merits some protection and since it involves commercial activity, and commercial activity in the modern era often requires the use of an artificial entity to conduct efficiently, it is appropriate for the courts to give corporations legal standing to invoke those rights on behalf of its agents, stakeholders, and customers.

[citizen k]

The Occupy Spokane group has decided not to occupy downtown Spokane overnight. There's too few of them and they get scared.   

[crazy canuck]

The Fire Chief has ordered that all the unused tents be taken down and the place get cleaned up a bit.  The Occupiers say they dont recognize the order but it looks like they are complying anyway.  As I said earlier it sure looked like there were more tents than people and it seems the Fire Cheif has deemed that a hazard.

[jimmy olsen]

P.S. Even though we disagree (although from your last para, perhaps not fundamentally), it's nice to talk about this with someone who's not a bit of a lunatic.

That's why I talk with myself so regularly. 

Oh, wait, there's a flaw with that ... 

Nope, my Mother always told me "people who talk to themselves are either rich or crazy and you ain't rich!"

You on the other hand are rich.

[Neil]

The Occupy Spokane group has decided not to occupy downtown Spokane overnight. There's too few of them and they get scared.   

They don't call it Spocompton for nothing.

[Neil]

P.S. Even though we disagree (although from your last para, perhaps not fundamentally), it's nice to talk about this with someone who's not a bit of a lunatic.

That's why I talk with myself so regularly. 

Oh, wait, there's a flaw with that ... 

Nope, my Mother always told me "people who talk to themselves are either rich or crazy and you ain't rich!"
You on the other hand are rich.

You're labouring under a misconception as to what 'rich' means.

[jimmy olsen]

Speaking of Citizens United, ten dem senators have introduced a constitutional amendment to repeal it. Good luck with that! 

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/11/02/udall-goes-nuclear-proposes-amendment-to-wipe-out-citizens-united/?mod=google_news_blog

Udall: Amend the Constitution, Wipe Out Citizens United

By Sam Favate

In the history of the United States, more than 11,000 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed, and only 27 have passed.

With those odds in mind, we bring you this story from HuffPo on a proposed constitutional amendment by Sen. Tom Udall (D., N.M.) that would blow up the Supreme Court's 5-to-4 ruling in Citizens United.

The ruling last year unleashed a flood of campaign contributions from corporations and super PACs, which can spend as much money as they want and do so nearly anonymously.

The proposal put forth by Udall would add language to the Constitution that says Congress and the states can regulate campaign contributions and expenditures. Click here for more on the proposal in The New Mexican.

The proposed amendment would also reverse the 1976 decision Buckley v Valeo, which held that spending money is a form of speech in elections.

At a press conference yesterday, Udall said "Campaigns should be about the best ideas, not the biggest checkbooks," and called Citizens United  "a threat to our democracy," according to The New Mexican.

Groups such as MoveToAmend.org have been organizing since the Citizens United decision to reverse the ruling. In a statement today, the group points out that Boulder, Colorado, became the second city in the nation last night to pass a ballot measure calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to end "corporate personhood." In April, Madison and Dane County, Wisconsin, passed similar measures.

Last year, the Disclose Act, which would have prohibited foreign influence in elections and stopped government contractors from making expenditures on elections, passed the House of Representatives, but was blocked from coming up for a Senate vote by Republicans.

At the time, President Obama said blocking the measure was an example of "politics at its worst," and added that the Supreme Court "overturned decades of law and precedent" with the Citizens United ruling. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky) said last year that the measure was a "partisan campaign bill," and took the focus away from jobs.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued a statement in the wake of the Disclose Act, saying it "clearly violates the Constitution, as well as basic principles of fairness and equity," and called on the Senate to dismiss the measure.

Udall's proposal has nine co-sponsors in the Senate.

LB reached out to Sen. McConnell's office for comment, but a spokesperson wasn't immediately available for comment.

[Josephus]

Here's a British millionionaire, now living in the USA, telling us what he thinks. It sounds really cool cause he's got a british accent.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150358729275737