On May 26, a U.S. District Court ruled that the First Amendment protects the ability of corporations and unions to make contributions to candidates for federal office, up to the same limit that applies to individuals. Here is the 52-page opinion, United States v Danielczyk, 1:11cr85, written by Judge James Cacheris, a semi-retired Reagan appointee.
Two individuals are being criminally prosecuted for reimbursing their employees for the money they spent to buy tickets to a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton. Federal law says, “No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person.” All the pages in the decision prior to page 42 deal with the Defendants’ arguments that that law doesn’t apply to them. The decision rebuts those arguments, and upholds those parts of the indictment. But because count four of the charges against the Defendants alleges that they also broke the law that bans corporations from donating to candidates to federal office, the judge had to deal specially with that count. The judge ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban corporate donations to candidates (up to the relatively low limit that applies to individual donations) and struck count four from the indictment. That part of the decision is short and is on pages 42-46.
The famous Citizens United decision from the U.S. Supreme only struck down the ban on corporations and unions making independent expenditures. However, people who don’t like the Citizens United decision constantly say that decision struck down the limits on donations. For example, the New York Times of May 26 has an editorial that says, “Uber-PACs will compound the damage of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that overturned restrictions against unlimited corporate donations.” That sentence is false. But because the New York Times and other critics of the Citizens United decision has alleged so many times that Citizens United applies to donations, these voices have inadvertently led the public to believe that corporations can already make donations, so the Danielczyk decision won’t appear very newsworthy.
You continue to miss the central point. If a corporation makes “independent” expenditures for advertisements in support of a candidacy, the campaign for the candidate is then free to spend their money elsewhere.
#1 So you are opposed to freedom?
This is a nice objective analysis.
See Blackstone’s Commentaries about corporations and other FICTIONS.
— NOT brought up in the CU case — due to armies of legal history MORONS.
Of course, *government* is a fiction — ask any 8 year old — Hey kid, do you see any *government*.
A smart kid will answer — NO — all I see is some folks claiming to be government officers and some government property — buildings, roads, etc.
1 –
Yes, I am opposed to giving corporations the freedom to purchase elected offices.
Can I be any clearer on this point?
We don’t need Unions giving my dues money to candidates I don’t support. Corporations should be able to defend themselves on issues, I don’t think they should donate to candidates. Corporations are not individuals.
6 –
Of course they are. The USSC has said they’re individuals. But the big question remaining to be answered by the USSC is this:
Can same-sex corporations marry?
So weigh in on this issue, Jimbo (1). Are you for giving corporate individuals full equality, or are you for keeping them relegated to second class citizenship status, you freedom hater, you?
#7, I challenge you to find any sentence in Citizens United v FEC that says corporations are individuals.
8 –
And I challenge YOU to look at that decision and its practical implications and tell me how the USSC could have arrived at that decision without the precedent it established by having determined that corporations are “individuals” and therefore have the same “right” to free speech that is accorded to “individuals” who are wrapped in human skin.
You baffle me, Richard. You purport to advance the issue of free and equal access to the ballot box. Yet you are so clearly and obdurately in favor of giving corporations disproportionate influence over the outcome of elections, which is precisely what that decision does.
I maintain that we all have an interest in crafting campaign finance laws which a society in which corporations cannot support candidacies. I do so because the influence that they can and will exert will ultimately make the final count of many elections a moot exercise. For all your efforts to make ballot access free and equal, the final results of final elections will be baked long before the voters get to the polls.
Bought and paid for.
By corporations.
I further maintain that campaign finance laws which restrict corporations from bankrolling campaigns is the way to prevent that from happening. And what are your responses?
First, you ask why corporations should not have the same rights as unions and newspapers (curiously you have always cited NYT editorials, and not the WSJ or the Washington Times). Well, as I’ve said before, when Boeing starts publishing a newspaper they can start writing editorials, too. As for unions…no, I don’t believe they should be allowed to contribute to campaigns either.
Second, as we discuss this further, we get to the matter of what constitutes a “contribution” to a campaign. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts…YOU…whittle a very fine point on this one by making distinctions between direct contributions to campaigns’ coffers versus “independent” advocacy for sides of issues embraced by specific candidates. By way of analogy, suppose I, a married man, had a girlfriend on the side. My wife finds out that I’ve been giving this other woman a check for $10,000 a month. The wife confronts me and I swear I won’t give the girlfriend any more money. But instead, I buy her food and clothes and jewelry and drop them on her doorstep. I also send money to her landlord to cover her rent. But I don’t giver her any more cash.
Think my wife will be satisfied that I’m not really “supporting” her anymore?
But ultimately, your argument (stated tersely by Republican toadie Jim Riley above) is essentially that we can’t discriminate against corporations because we would be curtailing their “freedom” unfairly, particularly if we don’t similarly discriminate against other non-human entities such as unions and newspapers. Mine is…of course we can. If we can tell an individual that he or she can’t donate more than X dollars to a campaign (we do), we can tell a corporation that they can’t donate ANY. And we can further tell them that they can’t skirt that restriction by spending UNLIMITED dollars advocating for that candidate in the media, effectively drowning out the voice of the candidate’s opponent(s). And we can also, yes, tell unions that they can’t spend money on campaigns too.
But unfortunately, the reason we can’t do that is that long before the Citizens Untited v. FEC case, the USSC determined that corporations are individuals. I think we need to change that, but we’re not going to do so by continuing to expand the rights of corporations in the electoral arena.
Take away the USSC anointment of corporations as individuals (in multiple cases, not just one) and the Citizens case doesn’t even get out of district court.
The sentence you’re looking for is implicit in the decision. You’re picking nits here, Richard.
Correcting an editing error –
8 –
And I challenge YOU to look at that decision and its practical implications and tell me how the USSC could have arrived at that decision without the precedent it established by having determined that corporations are “individuals” and therefore have the same “right” to free speech that is accorded to “individuals” who are wrapped in human skin.
You baffle me, Richard. You purport to advance the issue of free and equal access to the ballot box. Yet you are so clearly and obdurately in favor of giving corporations disproportionate influence over the outcome of elections, which is precisely what that decision does.
I maintain that we all have an interest in crafting a society in which corporations cannot support candidacies. I do so because the influence that they can and will exert will ultimately make the final count of many elections a moot exercise. For all your efforts to make ballot access free and equal, the final results of final elections will be baked long before the voters get to the polls.
Bought and paid for.
By corporations.
I further maintain that campaign finance laws which restrict corporations from bankrolling campaigns is the way to prevent that from happening. And what are your responses?
First, you ask why corporations should not have the same rights as unions and newspapers (curiously you have always cited NYT editorials, and not the WSJ or the Washington Times). Well, as I’ve said before, when Boeing starts publishing a newspaper they can start writing editorials, too. As for unions…no, I don’t believe they should be allowed to contribute to campaigns either.
Second, as we discuss this further, we get to the matter of what constitutes a “contribution” to a campaign. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts…YOU…whittle a very fine point on this one by making distinctions between direct contributions to campaigns’ coffers versus “independent” advocacy for sides of issues embraced by specific candidates. By way of analogy, suppose I, a married man, had a girlfriend on the side. My wife finds out that I’ve been giving this other woman a check for $10,000 a month. The wife confronts me and I swear I won’t give the girlfriend any more money. But instead, I buy her food and clothes and jewelry and drop them on her doorstep. I also send money to her landlord to cover her rent. But I don’t giver her any more cash.
Think my wife will be satisfied that I’m not really “supporting” her anymore?
But ultimately, your argument (stated tersely by Republican toadie Jim Riley above) is essentially that we can’t discriminate against corporations because we would be curtailing their “freedom” unfairly, particularly if we don’t similarly discriminate against other non-human entities such as unions and newspapers. Mine is…of course we can. If we can tell an individual that he or she can’t donate more than X dollars to a campaign (we do), we can tell a corporation that they can’t donate ANY. And we can further tell them that they can’t skirt that restriction by spending UNLIMITED dollars advocating for that candidate in the media, effectively drowning out the voice of the candidate’s opponent(s). And we can also, yes, tell unions that they can’t spend money on campaigns too.
But unfortunately, the reason we can’t do that is that long before the Citizens Untited v. FEC case, the USSC determined that corporations are individuals. I think we need to change that, but we’re not going to do so by continuing to expand the rights of corporations in the electoral arena.
Take away the USSC anointment of corporations as individuals (in multiple cases, not just one) and the Citizens case doesn’t even get out of district court.
The sentence you’re looking for is implicit in the decision. You’re picking nits here, Richard.
Part of the stuff is due to the Supremes regarding fictional corporations as being *persons* in the 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 in the late 1800s.
Too many SCOTUS party hack legal morons to count — esp. since 1861.
#10 How do you distinguish between freedom of speech and freedom of the press? Is it the medium that is used, is it the format?
What if instead of leaving clothing and food, and paying the landlord, you make a contribution to your girlfriend’s favorite charity? And imagine that you were publisher of the Baronscarpia Times. What if BST, Inc. were to make a contribution to your girlfriend’s favorite charity? How about if you were to direct that laudatory articles about your girlfriend’s charity appear in the BST.
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/
Book 1
Chap. 1: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals
—–
Chap. 18: Of Corporations
12 –
Just own it, Jimbo. You’re a Republican, corporate tool.
so your boss at work or the owner of a large corporation decides whom to endorse for a myriad of reasons, one could be a government perk the other personal or moral beliefs, and then imposes their views on employee’s, claiming and showing employee’s who has been decided as their right candidate according to anothers opinion….and these paid workers being told what to do at work, they should feel obliged or experience a bit of pressure to follow what their “boss” says in order to keep their job..and a civil discussion at work on politics will commence? I could swear many businesses don’t allow or enjoy political and religious discussion at work or with clients/customers as employee’s are to not engage in debate or arguments…..Its not going to impose on others or scare people from their freedom of speech (having pressure on who to vote for via your “boss”)? Besides voting is a private issue, and none of your bosses business anyway right? None of this sort of government covert action or ruling is a new trend or such- just think in our free country lists of people had no rights based on their skin color, who they have sex with or their gender, until the past century-why is that?
And is true quite a few federally registered major corporations were sold to foreign interest- so to think here- if they are owned by non Americans- then outside interest can now play a larger role in controlling elections. Nifty. Sounds fishy-I know…. lets call that government agency and complain to get some help…lol
15 –
It’s ironic, isn’t it? In Richard’s post on this matter, he states:
“The famous Citizens United decision from the U.S. Supreme only struck down the ban on corporations and unions making independent expenditures. However, people who don’t like the Citizens United decision constantly say that decision struck down the limits on donations. For example, the New York Times of May 26 has an editorial that says, “Uber-PACs will compound the damage of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that overturned restrictions against unlimited corporate donations.” That sentence is false. But because the New York Times and other critics of the Citizens United decision has alleged so many times that Citizens United applies to donations, these voices have inadvertently led the public to believe that corporations can already make donations, so the Danielczyk decision won’t appear very newsworthy.”
Richard contends that the NYT (funny how he always names that paper when he discusses this issue) has muddied the waters with their persistent, alleged misstatements of the facts of the case, to the point where the public has a distorted view of the effects of the decision. And yet, he and Jimbo the Republican corporate tool apparently see nothing wrong with allowing multi-billion dollar corporate “individuals” to expend unlimited quantities of money to flood the media with their biased views on issues which are pivotal to the campaigns they target.
For goodness sakes, Crankers, get with the program. Freedom of speech in this country is to be meted out on a sliding scale of wealth. In this country, thanks to corporate toadies like Jimbo and Richard, you get as much freedom to speak as you have money to spend…up to a limit of $2,500 per candidate per election, of course. Wouldn’t want you buying an election, after all. But if you don’t have enough money, as a human individual, to purchase your free speech though “indirect” expenditures, I’d suggest you morph into a corporate “individual.”
Make that a very large corporate “individual”
But, as you point out, make sure you also morph into the CEO of that very large corporate “individual” so you as a human “individual” can determine how the corporate “individual’s” freedom of speech ought to be exercised.
My guess is it won’t be to support the side of any issue embraced by a third party candidate.
And get cracking, will you? The sooner your new corporate “individual” entity and others like yours get out there are start buying elections, the sooner Richard can retire this site. Third party efforts and efforts to make ballot access free and equal will be utter wastes of time.
How much of the food, clothing and shelter in ALL nations is made by corporations ???
Again – this an election law blog — not a bash corporations blog.
Bash the EVIL gerrymander system in the U.S.A. instead.
Half the votes in half the gerrymander areas (U.S.A., State and local) = the nonstop indirect minority rule and the EVIL STATISM in the U.S.A. since 4 July 1776.