Skip to main content

View Diary: Supreme Court could rule as early as Monday on Montana-related review of Citizens United (98 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's precisely the basis for the ruling. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright, coffeetalk, vcmvo2

    Its effect is to give corporations rights, of course, but the idea that the SCOTUS ruled that corporations are people and therefore have free speech rights is incorrect. They ruled that speech itself is free, without regard to speaker.

    Formerly known as Jyrinx.

    “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” ― Emma Goldman

    by Code Monkey on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 04:22:57 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  So don't think of those millions as coming from (0+ / 0-)

      Sheldon Adelson, et al, think of them as existing purely in an ether of abstraction. If that makes you feel better.

      "Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous." -- Molly Ivins

      by dumpster on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 04:54:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Code M - I agree in part (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JPax, harrije

      CU said the rights were in the speech, not the speaker. But CU also made a very clear distinction between "natural persons" and organizations of people such as clubs, unions, and corporations.  I am still puzzled why anyone thinks the in CU the SCOTUS ruled that corporations are people. They didn't.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 05:23:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Mitt Romney said that "corporations are people..." (0+ / 0-)

        So, of course it's wrong. Par for him. :-)

        -We need Healthcare Reform... but i'm selfish, I Need Healthcare reform-

        by JPax on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 05:32:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The principle is much older than CU (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, vcmvo2

        And while I agree with you on the specifics of CU that you raise...

        ...as far back as Santa Clara v. SPR, in the late 19th century, the SCOTUS was affirming that the legal term "person" applied to corporations in at least some instances.

        50 years later, Justice Black criticized this principle in one of his dissents -- that was at the height of the Lochner era, before the SCOTUS got spooked into finding room within the Commerce Clause for the New Deal to live and breathe.

        The issue of "corporate personhood" has gotten a lot of airtime and blogtime over the past few years (even before Citizens United) partly because corporations have gotten more legally belligerent in seeking 14th Amendment remedies to strike down various regulations.

        So while it is wrong to criticize CU on corporate personhood grounds, it is not correct to say that SCOTUS does not recognize corporate personhood. It's been on that bandwagon for 130 years and counting.

        sin and love and fear are just sounds that people who never sinned nor loved nor feared have for what they never had and cannot have until they forget the words

        by harrije on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 06:25:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  harrije - I don't think we disagree (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          harrije

          As I noted the Court has long ruled that corporations have some of the same rights of people, but not all the rights of "natural persons". I actually don't think there is much debate that corporations have to be able to hold title to real and personal property,  to sue and be sued, to be held to regulatory standards, to lobby, or be taxed just to name a few. The only real issue is how should corporations be limited regarding political speech and on that issue there is a wide variety of opinions.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 07:52:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site