Citizens Divided? Yes, conceptionally speaking.
The Corporate-kind "divided" from the Human-kind, that is. Separate and Not Equals. The way the founding Constitutional authors intended it. "Corporate" entities are not even mentioned in our founding documents -- although the 'Abuses of the Crown and the King', have no shortage of ink.
If you used to think Corporations have No Rights as citizens -- well recent events should make you think again about that quaint notion ...
Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit
by Adam Liptak, nytimes.com -- Jan 21, 2010
President Obama called it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”
[...]
“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of the court’s conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
The ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, overruled two precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions.
[...]
"it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."
I guess that means Corporations are "Citizens" too? They have "associations" -- directors, shareholders, employees, advocacy groups, think tanks, marketing departments, etc. etc.
-- Finally! What took them so long to find their voice?
... I wonder how many Votes, "they" get? ... Or will get, someday, as their Corporate Speech continues to be amplified ...
There were {human} Voices questioning the wisdom of granting Corporate-persons their now unlimited influence in our human-based Democratic processes and governing rituals.
But those Voices of Dissent were barely noticed ... above the Corporate celebratory din ...
After 34 Years, a Plainspoken Justice Gets Louder
by Adam Liptak, nytimes.com -- Jan 21, 2010
But there was no mistaking his basic message [Justice John Paul Stevens]. “The rule announced today — that Congress must treat corporations exactly like human speakers in the political realm — represents a radical change in the law,” he said from the bench. “The court’s decision is at war with the views of generations of Americans.”
[...]
In his dissent, Justice Stevens said no principle required overruling two major campaign finance precedents. “The only relevant thing that has changed since” those decisions, he wrote, “is the composition of this court.”
Like I always say, if you want the real story -- Go to the Source ...
Opinion of Stevens, J. [John Paul]
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CITIZENS UNITED, APPELLANT v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
January 21, 2010
[...]
The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.
In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.
The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.
[in conclusion ...]
At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.
"fighting against the corrupting potential of corporate electioneering ..."
Americans deserve to at least know -- Who is Buying their Elections!
It's just "common sense", right?
It would seem so, to all the Supreme Justices, except one ...
Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit
by Adam Liptak, nytimes.com -- Jan 21, 2010
[...]
Eight of the justices did agree that Congress can require corporations to disclose their spending and to run disclaimers with their advertisements, at least in the absence of proof of threats or reprisals. “Disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way,” Justice Kennedy wrote. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented on this point.
Clarence Thomas the lone vote -- against Disclosure of Corporate funding, as 'unlimited and free' as it now may be.
Surprise, Surprise.
Well President Obama has floated an Executive Order "Trial Balloon" that would require more Corporate Disclosure {if penned}. Disclosure, in exchange for receiving Federal Contract funding.
So far, that balloon is still floating ... somewhere.
UPDATE 1 -- Obama order on US campaign donations feared stalled
by Kim Dixon and Patricia Zengerle, reuters.com -- Jun 14, 2011
WASHINGTON, June 14 (Reuters) - The White House is under pressure from consumer activists to proceed with plans to force government contractors to disclose their political donations -- rules that companies warn will politicize awards of government business.
Consumer group Public Citizen said on Tuesday it is among those worried that the White House attempt to throw more light on campaign spending will be put on the shelf after harsh criticism from the business community.
[...]
An administration spokesman said the order is still under review.
In addition to donations above $5,000 to candidates, the order would also require disclosure of contributions to third parties that fund political advertisements.
"The draft executive order is still in draft form and undergoing review. But broadly speaking, the president is committed to improving our federal contracting system, making it more transparent and more accountable," White House spokesman Eric Schultz said.
Where in the world, is the FEC [Federal Election Commission] on this important Issue of "requiring" more Disclosure of Corporate entities, steering Campaign ships of state?
In a word -- they're Divided, too.
Surprise, Surprise.
FEC Commissioner Cynthia Bauerly Talks Transparency and Campaign Finance Law at Public Citizen Event
By Kathleen Ronayne, opensecrets.org -- June 10, 2011
WASHINGTON -- Cynthia Bauerly, the current chair of the Federal Election Commission, stressed the importance of disclosure in keeping voters informed and democracy strong in a talk with the consumer rights group Public Citizen on Thursday.
"Disclosure is a very important part, the bedrock really, of everything that happens in the campaign finance area," she said.
The overturning of the ban on corporate political expenditures is most often highlighted when talking about the court's Citizens United ruling. But, Bauerly said, a very important part of the decision is the justices' 8-1 opinion that affirmed full disclosure of political expenditures.
[...]
On the point of the FEC's near-constant 3-3 deadlock between its three Republican and three Democratic commissioners, Bauerly, a Democrat, focused on the public service that the FEC provides, despite its frequent inability to come to consensus or make new rules.
"I think the agency provides a very important public service," she said. "While it's true we deadlock on more things and on the hard things, if the FEC were to just disappear, our data would disappear. The reports would disappear. The public would have no information."
Hope those Corporate-citizen-types, and the deep-pockets Tea Party backer-types, don't figure that one out.
"... if the FEC were to just disappear ..."
Their Corporate-funding reports would disappear, too. ... Hmmm?
Poof! Their Problem solved. Pesky human snoops -- Be Gone!
Finally all the "citizens" of capital kingdom -- once conceptionally divided -- the Corporate-kind from the Human-kind, could once again be United ...
clip transcript
... just as the 'founding' social-engineers of "Citizens United" have intended it ...
We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable by-laws of of business. ...
One vast and ecumenical holding company for whom all men will work to serve a common profit. In which all men will hold a share of stock.
All necessities provided. All anxieties tranquilized. All boredom amused.