I don't see regulating the involvement of corporations as political speech. What this decision appears to do is to give the owner of the megaphone that transmits political speech the power to broadcast or suppress what speech is provided to the voting electorate. What does this do about the the decisions of FOX, CBS, etc. to refuse to accept the political ads by MoveOn and such?

This decision gives control of the flow of broadcast speech entirely to the fictional entities called corporations. Controlling the flow of (one-way) broadcast speech through corporate controlled media differs sharply from actually speaking. This gives the corporations that control the mass media complete power to spread their own messages at will - while they claim to have policies in place that lets them prevent those they don't like from getting access to the same broadcast media.

This morning George Will said that Social Science can't document cases in which corporate money changed election outcomes. Typical George Will lying Crap. In 2002 Tom DeLay laundered corprate money through the Republican National Committee and sent it to Republican candidates for election to the Texas House of Representatives. The corporate-sourced money was illegal under Texas law. The result what that the Texas House of Representatives went Republican for the first time since Reconstruction. The outcome was that the Republicans did an unprecedented between the census redistricting of Congressional Districts in Texas which resulted in a Republican gain of five Federal Congressmen in 2004 - and also resulted in an indictment of Tom DeLay for violation of Texas election law that resulted in his removal from Congress. It does not appear to me that the Texas law would now be enforceable (I'm no lawyer. My inexpert evaluation.)

Since when is the government in business to provide for the general welfare of corporations rather than for human beings? Oh, yeah. Since the conservatives got five Catholic authoritarians appointed to the Supreme Court - for life. That's when.

The comment you included

"Man's best friend," who posted this comment there: "Corporations are a legal invention whose sole purpose is to protect property rights... They can enter into contracts, which govern the exchange of money and property (or services...). They can sue or be sued, impose or have imposed liens on property. There are NO rights of natural persons that appertain to corporations other than those connected with property rights. They can't vote. They have no 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination. They do not have free speech rights."

The apparent legal fact of the personhood of a corporation - given by legislation and not by the Constitution - seems to me to be subject to change by legislation.

Doesn't that mean that the Legislature can in this case override the Supreme Court decision?

But I fear I have a better imagination, and perhaps more audacity, than the president does.

Jim wrote:

"The First Amendment wasn't written to protect business corporations -- a fact that's only confirmed by its specific exemption of "the press" from regulation of speech."

But I don't think the First Amendment is the core issue at stake here. It seems to me that it was the 14th Equal Protection that was assumed to cover corporations as well as people in the 1886 Santa Clara v Southern Pacific by the judiciary that has given rise to any constitutional protection apart from trade and property.

But times have changed since 1886 and, now that Foreign Corporations, Sovereign Wealth Funds, and even the U.S. Government can be and at times are majority owners of corporation, I wonder whether or not this position is open to meaningful challenge in the SCOTUS. And if it is I wonder how that would effect last week's decision.

I also wonder if there is a progressive equivalent in the legal profession to the Federalist Society committed to finally defining whether or not a corporation is a person for the purposes of the First Amendment.

Any constitutional attorneys out there care to comment?

Remember when the five were confirmed and they termed themselves "strict constructionists"? Ha! SCOTUS is a joke that does not inspire much respect (if any).

Look Mr. Sleeper, If you want to talk "inundating us", Go to the movies and watch 'Avitar'.
Young children get the union fed Obama doctrine in grammer school.
Over 400 speeches is "1984" come true.
Please Mr. (Henry Higgins) Sleeper you are not going to make Pres. (Eliza) Obama in to a sucessful business man with your angry words.

I agree with others about the pernicious effects of this decision on our democracy in practice. I am, however, a little less certain that the decision is wrong in theory. Corporations are really nothing more than groups of people formally organized to accomplish some end. Most business corporations are formally organized to make money (or protect property as someone posted above)--but there are plenty of other corporations organized for other purposes, including advocating for various altruistic causes. It does seem to me a bit of a stretch to say the Constitution envisioned free speech as merely a right of individuals and not of formally organized groups of individuals. In fact, the ability to prevent formally organized groups from speaking freely, seems to weaken even individual speech rights, because (on their own) individuals are relatively weak, but in groups they become stronger. This is why organizations (corporations) like the Sierra Club exist. Individuals (except maybe very wealthy or well-known individuals) are not all that effective on their own speaking in favor of environmental reform. But, when they join into groups, they are for more powerful and far more likely to be heard. I also don't agree that the "freedom of the press" clause was written to protect the right of a particular industry (the news media). I think it has a much broader meaning--that people (acting as individuals or as groups) --have the right not only to speak, but to publish their ideas. Freedom of the speech guarantees a right to express ideas; freedom of the press guarantees a right to distribute those ideas.

Our democracy is, however, in crisis, and this decision magnifies that crisis. The core problems, as I see them, are four:

I wish I knew how to solve each of these four (interrelated) problems. The campaign laws that were in effect until the Supreme Court decision may have reduced the impact of the fourth factor, but it hardly removed that factor. These four problems have plagued us for years--and increasingly seem to me more and more intractable. Increasingly, I despair at the ability of our democracy to solve any of these problems unless average voters become more involved and more informed. But how that happens is well beyond me.

Political action is chiefly campaign spending, lobbying, and various forms of education.

If I wish to donate political money or call my Senator on the phone (lobbying), I must spend after-tax money to do so. So must every share-holder in BIG-PHARMA who cares to support his investment by defeating health-care reform's cost-cutting possibilities by keeping drug prices unreasonably high.

But BIG-PHARMA itself can spend before-tax money for political "speech" and for lobbying. And it can do so whether its share-holders would prefer to receive that money as dividends or not.

Labor unions have much less money than corporations, but all the same arguments work.

For all the reasons we all know, this is unfair and undemocratic (if you think democracy involves what people desire and not merely what big corporations desire).

In my view, no non-human-being (what we'd like to call a non-person, but cannot any more) should be allowed to take POLITICAL ACTION in the USA UNLESS IT IS A "HBPAC", that is, a voluntary organization funded ENTIRELY by contributions from human-beings (HBs) and organized specifically to take political action.

A BIG-PHARMA PAC could (in my view) properly go before Congress to argue against cheap drugs, but not BIG-PHARMA itself.

Conservative justices pretended not to, thereby violating the Court's and the republic's most basic principles. So did the Emperor Augustus, who choose Car transporters to have his car moved on time for the meeting. And he also permitted Romans to keep going to hold elections with "all the wild inconveniences of democracy" even as he and many more drained the fading republic's offices of power and honor.

It must be a great stuff for corporate speeches!

Good! :)

blablabla

Nice article and very descriptive... i just decided that i would purchase insurance on my car last week since i am making so much with my forex demo account

That might be an easier path to regulation than by regulating "speech." Maybe public corps should be required to disclose in their annual reports all political activity (campaign contributions, ads in support of or opposition to political candidates or parties or public policies, lobbying) and get shareholder votes to approve that activity.
fire protection engineering degree

Thanks The First Amendment wasn't written to protect business corporations -- a fact that's only confirmed by its specific exemption of "the press" from regulation of speech. Other corporations are fair game. Citizens can speak for business interests anytime. ergonomics certification

I am happy to find so many useful information here in the post, we need develop more strategies in this regard, thanks for sharing.
sport management programs

danger is that debaamong citizens is being skewed and drowned by simulated voices of non-corporeal (often non-American) entities that can't be swayed by debate, as citizens sometimes can, to rise above their bottom lines degree in criminal justice

Witness the city’s self-proclaimed “world’s fastest rodeo,” which gallops through town each June. Loyal cowpokes come from all over the West, and their antics are immortalized in photos on the walls of local
casino en ligne

I just want to emphasize the good work on this , has excellent views and a clear vision of what you are looking for
online master degree
mba degree

Thank you for this very useful information.
online diploma

I really like your website because you gave me about info and resource I’ve never seen that before. I’ l stay tuned on your web site.
auto insurance companies

I always heard something from my neighbor that he sometimes goes to the internet bar to play the game which will use him some
penny auction

Hi there. I really appreciate the points you made. I don't think I've actually thought about it in that way thanx...!!!!
tesol certification

Hi there. I really appreciate the points you made. I don't think I've actually thought about it in that way thanx...!!!!
Bankruptcy attorney New York

I really liked the post and great tips..even I also think that hard work is the most important aspect of getting success keep it up :)
Colorado SEO

auto transport, car shipping, car transport, car transportation, vehicle shipping, auto transport.