MLK and the Supreme Court: Why Campaign Finance Reform is a Civil Rights Issue

You're right on Myrna. A corporation is an artificial entity without conscience or soul. It is an economic entity and can only be expected to make economic decisions. This is also about the balance/imblance of power, and un-levels the playing field even further against those without economic clout. Yesterday was a sad day for constitutional democracy.

NBC, CBS, and ABC are corporations and they are allowed to influence elections; and they have agendas.

The second part of your sentence is just plain false.

I'm not sure that this Supreme Court Decision truly makes a difference. If corporations were barred -- and yet they wanted to give to a campaign -- what they can do (and what they probably do now) is have an individual from the corporation give the gift. And voila! Campaign contribution from a corporation that may influence elections. So now the corporations will give contributions out in the open rather than hiding behind an individual or a PAC.

The problem with much of Progressive thinking is that if something is wrong, "we have to pass a Federal law" in order to force people to act in certain ways. Believe me, many Neo-Conservatives operate under a similar philosophy -- pass laws and force people to act in certain ways.

Instead of doing the hard educational work of convincing people in the Market of Ideas.

Actually, there *is* a law to prevent exactly the scenario you describe: there is a cap on how much an individual can give to a campaign. And the fact that corporations already go to great lengths to work around campaign finance laws only proves how much they'll abuse more freedom.

If NBC, CBS, and ABC have agendas then Fox is on a crusade.

I'm not so sure this ruling is as awful as people are making it out to be.

For the purposes of this case a "corporation" is not merely a large business, but any incorporated entity. This includes businesses, not-for-profits, labor unions, etc. A corporation is simply a group of citizens who've organized in a certain way under the law.

And let's pay attention to the specifics of this case that Jim, Mryna and other commentators don't even bother to bring up. A non-profit corporation brought the case because it wanted to air a video critical of a candidate before an election. The government said no. During the Supreme Court hearing, the government lawyer admitted this same standard would apply to a corporately funded book, leaflet, internet website, YouTube video, etc. Do we really want the government saying to American citizens who pool their money in a corporation that they cannot speak out in favor or disapproval of a candidate for public office during an election? Should the government have a right to ban a book criticizing a candidate just because it was paid for by a corporation? How is this Constitutional? Shouldn't elections be the time in which we'd want the maximum amount of freedom of speech?

I might not like the idea of Exxon-Mobile running an ad saying defeat candidate X, but it's entirely preferable to the government having the ability to ban a book put out by the Sierra Club because it says we should vote against candidate Y.

For those interested in more than sound bites I recommend this essay:

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/det...

In it, the author writes about this case:

The details involved an arcane provision of the law, and most observers expected a limited decision that would make little news and not much practical difference in how campaigns are run. But in the course of the ­argument, Justice Samuel Alito interrupted [Deputy Solicitor General] Stewart and inquired: "What's your answer to [the] point that there isn't any constitutional difference between the distribution of this movie on video [on] demand and providing access on the internet, providing DVDs, either through a commercial service or maybe in a public library, [or] providing the same thing in a book? Would the Constitution permit the restriction of all of those as well?" Stewart, an experienced litigator who had represented the government in campaign-finance cases at the Supreme Court before, responded that the provisions of McCain-Feingold could in fact be constitutionally applied to limit all those forms of speech. The law, he ­contended, would even require banning a book that made the same points as the Citizens United video.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal brought attention to this facet of the law that was thankfully found unconstitutional:

The Court's opinion is especially effective in dismantling McCain-Feingold's arbitrary exemption for media corporations. Thus a corporation that owns a newspaper-News Corp. or the New York Times-retains its First Amendment right to speak freely. "At the same time, some other corporation, with an identical business interest but no media outlet in its ownership structure, would be forbidden to speak or inform the public about the same issue," wrote Justice Kennedy. "This differential treatment cannot be squared with the First Amendment."

Yellowpage it right that there is a law that limits the amount an individual can give to a campaign. But direct donations to a campaign aren't what we're talking about here anyway. Corporations are still prohibited from making those.

What's being talked about here is expenditures on political speech, not campaign donations. You're right about the philosophy behind these laws. After all the laws we've passed we haven't been able to eliminate the need for money in elections.* I think it's better to have full disclosure and take the attitude that more speech is better, regardless of who's paying for it, particularly in this day of the Internet.

*The only way we'll be able to eliminate it is have total public funding of campaigns and I don't think we're ever going to have that.

Fox just showed a chart showing coverage of the two candidates
speeches in the Mass race and the coverage was equal, giving equal
exposure to each candidate. They then showed the charts for the other
networks and they were lopsided in favor of Coakley. Hmm. I wonder
why Fox is getting a HUGE increase in viewership. Wake up.

I think all the above arguments, including those posed by the justices themselves, are false choices to begin with. Doesn't this simply boil down to a question of ethics? Hasn't experience shown us that the more money you have as a corporation or individual, the better footing you have as a lobbyist in DC? Sure, they paint this as an inclusive law where "trade unions" and "social rights groups" also have a say... but come on, do we really think a campaign team will prefer listening to a civil rights movement or someone who fills their barrels?
Yes, a market-led economy is a mighty one, but is it just? Does it look out for the disenfranchised, the weak and the voiceless?

FOX (more appropriately FAUX) is "fair and balanced" like Rush Limbaugh is a
ballarina...Hannity and O'Reilly and the rest of the crowd their are nothing
more than the propaganda arm of the GOP...thankfully I am fully awake.

Cloaking this issue in a First Amendment argumant is a titallating intellectual excercise but it doesn't take away from the reality that it furthers the U.S. Congress's increasing participation in the "Oldest Profession"...our government is for sale and that hurts the citizens of America both liberal and conservative...and we wonder why only half the country's population votes.

you say "Do we really want the government saying to American citizens who pool their money in a corporation that they cannot speak out in favor or disapproval of a candidate for public office during an election?"
If that be the case you suggest that those involved in a corporation should have a SECOND vote in addition to the one already granted to them? You also suggest that all stakeholders in said corporation are in agreement with the board of directors who allocate funds? Shame on you for such flawed thinking

Here is a suggestion that will put an end to this debate once and for all. Corporate donations, since they represent a cross section of society by virtue of the participation of stakeholders and customers in creating the profits which provide campaign contributions, MUST be evenly divided among ALL candidates in whatever election being contributed to. End of corporate contributions.

A corporation is NOT a person. It is not entitled to first amendment rights because its opinions are not those of the corporation but are the opinions of its owners or its board. A corporation can no more have an opinion than a robot can. The basic tenant of the law is flawed.

Corporations are NOT people. They are legal entities and can no more have an opinion than my house can. The PEOPLE who direct the affairs of a corporation have opinions. If they wish to express them they can do so just like everyone else. IMHO any campaign contribution over 1000 dollars should be paid into a general fund to be divided equally among all candidates involved in said campaign.

I think you're misinterpreting what I said. We're not talking about voting. We're talking about using corporate funds to explicitly endorse a candidate. No one is getting a "SECOND vote".

And I'm not suggesting that all stakeholders in a corporation agree with what the corporation does. A Board and corporate officers make decisions on behalf of the stakeholders. Some stakeholders agree and some don't. There are remedies for this. Either try to remove Directors you disagree with or sell your stake in the corporation.

If what you say is true, how is it that spokesmen and women for corporations are quoted all the time in the news as speaking "for the corporation"? And why can't these same people "speak for the corporation" on political matters?

Also, using your logic, if a corporation is not a person and therefore not entitled to first amendment rights, is it not then entitled to other constitutional rights?

As Ilya Somin writes:

A second issue is that this logic applies not only to corporate free speech rights, but to all other constitutional rights exercised through the use of corporate resources. If people using state-created entities don't have free speech rights, they don't have any other constitutional rights either. After all, the supposed power to define the rights of state-created entities isn't limited to free speech rights. Thus, government would not be bound by the Fourth Amendment in searching corporate property (including employee offices). It could take corporate property for private use without paying compensation because the Fifth Amendment would no longer apply. It could forbid religious services on corporate property (including that owned by churches, most of which are after all nonprofit corporations). If the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment doesn't apply to corporate property, neither does the Free Exercise Clause. And so on.

I'm not misinterpreting anything. PEOPLE have opinions. Corporations do NOT. PEOPLE have constitutional rights, Corporations do not. Corporations have charters granted them by officials ELECTED by the PEOPLE who have constitutional rights. You can argue that until the world stops spinning but the facts won't change because someone paid or otherwise persuaded a group of politicians to betray the constitution and declare a corporation to be a person. We both know it's true and all your attempts to justify what is fundamentally wrong are transparently self serving.

No it is not entitled to constitutional rights. A corporation is not a person. Corporations need charter rights and protections to do business effectively and that is an entirely separate issue that has been conveniently circumvented by use of the word Corpus to describe a business venture. All commentary must start with the underlying premise and if that premise is flawed so is everything that follows.

I'm not misinterpreting anything.

Yes, you were. The fact that you haven't even tried to defend your comments about "second votes" tells me you realize you did misinterpret.

PEOPLE have opinions. Corporations do NOT.

So when a corporate spokesperson makes a statement of opinion, whose opinion is it?

Corporations have charters granted them by officials ELECTED by the PEOPLE who have constitutional rights.

That is all true. But that doesn't mean that constitutional rights are suspended when it comes to corporate action. I doubt you really believe they should be anyway. See the examples in the text I quoted to you below. Do you think the government should be able to suspend the 4th or 5th amendments when it comes to corporately owned property?

You can argue that until the world stops spinning but the facts won't change because someone paid or otherwise persuaded a group of politicians to betray the constitution and declare a corporation to be a person. We both know it's true and all your attempts to justify what is fundamentally wrong are transparently self serving.

I will continue to argue that because I believe that freedom of speech is precious and should be, in 99.9% of circumstances, inviolate. But you're right; I admit my argument is self serving. I enjoy the freedom of speech, as do you. I don't want to give the government an inch in taking it away, whether it's from some unsympathetic, large corporate business or or a local not-for-profit corporation. (By the way, the Justices of the Supreme Court are not politicians. It's the politicians who want to limit speech during elections.)

So when you say that a corporation doesn't have constitutional rights are you saying that the government would be justified in doing what is used as examples in my previous post (no religious services at a church? Take property without compensation? Unwarranted search and seizures? )

Did you read the link I sent? The author addresses your contention that because a corporation exists under a regime set up by the state that the state can suspend the constitutional rights of the people who created it when they act as a collective.