On April 23, the Republican National Committee filed this request with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to hear Republican National Committee v Federal Election Commission. The case concerns the limit of $30,400 on how much individuals may contribute to an FEC-recognized political party.
The party is not asking that the limit be totally invalidated, just that it be invalidated when the money is going for activities that have nothing to do with federal candidates. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
AMEN!
Anything that impinges on corporations’ God-given rights to exercise their right to free speech and purchase whatever laws they need to make money at the local and state levels should have out well-reasoned and dispassionate support!
Corporations are not people. Corporations are not people.
Corporations are not people.
Corporations are not people.
Corporations are not people.
Corporations are not people.
Corporations are not people.
Corporations are not people.
Corporations are not people.
Corporations are not people.
Corporations are not people.
Corporations are not people.
Corporations are not people.
Political parties aren’t people either. Does that mean the government should be allowed to tell political parties that they cannot speak?
Newspapers aren’t people either. Does that mean the government should be allowed to tell newspapers that they cannot speak?
Opponents of the Citizens United decision will never make any converts to their side if they don’t answer questions like this.
1. Yes, a political party, or a newspaper are not citizens and thus should not have the constitutional rights of citizens. To suggest otherwise is pure sillyness.
2. Citizens have Constitutional right to establish, associate with, recruit members and campaign for political parties and interest groups. Yet, any rights come from the citizens — coming together for a cause or candidate — and not the party or group itself.
3. Citizens have a Constitional right to freedom of the press and publication and (IMHO) that extends to things like the Artwork, Films, TV, Radio, Video Games and Internet. Yet, a piece of art or a film or a tv or a radio or video game are not a citizen.
4. Citizens United is another morally bankrupt case. Why? Well, treating something that is not a person as a person is pretty silly. But not too shocking given the bent of the court. Because the court selectivly treats the political process as an exercise in the 1st/14th Amendment when it suits it and then other times insists that such expressive-equal protectioin rights mean nothing.
Taken to its logical conclusions, Citizens United seems to suggest that while citizens have very few rights when they vote or stand for office, somethinhg is not human suddenly has almost absolute rights. That is something that cannot be defended.
Wasn’t this part of McCain Feingold that Republicans voted for and passed?
Very few Republicans in Congress voted for McCain-Feingold, although it is true that a Republican president, George W. Bush, signed it.
Richard –
Your repeated use of “newspapers” as an argument that corporations ought to have the same voice as people is really rather silly. But I’ll answer your question for you, anyway.
General Motors is not granted freedom of the press by the US Constitution. If and when they choose to start publishing, then they will have the same rights as your favorite punching bag, the “NYT.” But for now at least, they just make cars.
Now…let me ask you a few questions.
If corporations should have the same rights to free speech as individual human beings do…even though there is no such language in the US Constitution…what other “rights” do you propose to give to corporations to keep those poor, unfortunate, downtrodden multi-billion dollar waifs on equal footing with say, for instance, my plumber? Can they bear arms? Can they practice religion? Can Monsanto throw out FDA inspectors no the basis that the inspection represents unreasonable search and seizure? And how on earth can we deny them the franchise that we flesh and blood citizens are granted? After all, how cheap would be the currency of “free speech” if the single most important coin to spend – the vote – is denied to your precious corporate entities?
How will we allocate votes to them? One vote per $10,000 of net worth?
Can corporations marry? Adopt children? If not, why not? After all – the robber baron USSC of the late nineteenth century said they’re “persons,” right? Why stop at free speech for these very special persons?
Let’s cut to the chase and ask the important questions – why do you abide fascism? What’s in it for you personally that you actually cheer from the sidelines as behemoth, faceless entities which are motivated solely by profit motive are granted even more power to influence…no, DOMINATE…American politics, government and society? Why do you see this as a GOOD thing? Why do you insist on putting them on equal footing with political parties in a putatively democratic country? And are you willing to draw the line at domestic corporations. You base your assertions to equal rights to free speech only on corporation’s “personhood” – noth their citizenship? So does it matter where the corporation is domiciled? Shall we give Japanese or German companies the same right to purchase politicians and laws as American corporations?
What family, what schools, what life experiences taught you these decadent values? Why do you abhor the concept that individual American people ought to reign supreme in American society?
The Bill of Rights has the 4th amendment, which says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” That obviously only applies to people.
The 5th amendment says, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” That obviously only applies to people.
The 8th amendment says, “Excessive bail shall not be required.” That obviously only applies to people.
The 2nd amendment says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That obviously only applies to people, because “people” is in the text.
The First Amendment is different. It could have been worded to talk about the right of the people to speak freely. But it doesn’t. It says “Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech.”
I associate fascism with government shutting down newspapers, opposition political parties, certain disloyal churches and lodges and other associations. I don’t associate fascism with limits on government power.
Richard –
You are so close to the central point here, but for some reason it continues to allude you. You base your arguments on the use of the word “people” in the Bill of Rights, and yet it is PRECISELY the assignation of “personhood” status to corporations by a succession of terrible, corrupt rulings by the USSC which has brought us to this discussion.
Why on earth can’t you see this?
Your website is devoted to issues affecting the franchise in a free, democratic (“Demos” – the people) society, and yet you see no problem whatsoever in granting to corporations – including multinational Goliaths with treasuries sufficiently immense to drown out even the collective voices of hundreds of thousands of individuals merely by cutting checks, and with no ethical purpose, no social purpose, no moral purpose other than to make more profit.
Do you think the FF’s intended to grant equal free speech to the military. After all, they could have explicity excluded them, too. Right? When can we expect to see the Air Force buying commercials in support of political positions on issues of the day?
What on earth has so warped your thinking on this matter? EVERYTHING you discuss on this website could be relegated to infinitesimal insignificance if the trend of these rulings, which you lustily support, continue unabated. How can you not see this? I guess it’s because of your narrow and altogether naive definition of fascism.
So hey, good on ya’. Go ahead…keep writing posts on whether some piss-ant fourth party can get on the ballot to run for a Truth or Consequences, New Mexico town selectman office, or whether a state’s primary should be held on a Tuesday or a Wednesday. Important stuff that…for now. But when you vision for America comes to fruition and companies like Monsanto count public office holders in the inventory of their balance sheets, your website will look incredibly silly.
C’mon…doesn’t it trouble you in the slightest bit to be an abject tool for corporations? You can’t be a major stockholder in all of them, can you?
God Bless America, Inc.
There is nothing unconstitutional about limiting the amount of money a person or a corporation can spend on a campaign.
#7 The Constitution grants rights?
Maybe Thomas Jefferson got it mixed up in the Declaration of Independence, so he was sent to France while the Constitution was written. The 1787 version of course vested all power in the Central Government, amd the 1789 amendments were a grant of certain carefully circumscribed privileges to the people.