An Open Letter To Chief Justice Roberts
Jan 22nd, 2010 | 85 responses
To: Chief Justice John Roberts
Re: Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission
Dear John,
I am a voter who takes his citizenship seriously. I am not a rich man. I have volunteered my time as an unpaid volunteer to work for various political causes and candidates. In your majority ruling Thursday, you reaffirm that corporations have the same rights as individuals.
You go on to rule that corporations are free to contribute as much money as they want to federal political races in support or against a candidate before an election. You call it a First Amendment issue.
Sir, I humbly suggest I am not equal to Exxon in terms of buying ad space for a candidate for the House of Representatives. Even if I secured a $1 donation from a million friends just like me would we be equal to match a Big Oil corporation fighting new energy regulations, for example.
May I remind you, sir, your majority decision overturned about 100 years of precedent limiting the wealth of large corporations influencing the outcome of elections. Specifically, during your Senate confirmation hearing in 2005 you stated your judicial belief as a strict constitutional constructionist and valued legal precedents as the holy grail of the law:
“Judges are like umpires,” you said back then. “Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire… I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”
Again, may I humbly suggest, sir, you swung for the fences in Citizens United. You and your majority justices took a narrow issue from the political “documentary” of then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and changed the entire complexion of campaign financing laws.
Sir, allow me to refer you to Friday’s New York Times article in which your good friend Benjamin L. Ginsberg is quoted:
“It will put on steroids the trend that outside groups are increasingly dominating campaigns,” Mr. Ginsberg said. “Candidates lose control of their message. Some of these guys lose control of their whole personalities.”
“Parties will sort of shrink in the relative importance of things,” he added, “and outside groups will take over more of the functions — advertising support, get out the vote — that (political) parties do now.”
And, from one of your inquisitors during your Senate confirmation hearing, New York Sen. Charles Schumer:
“The Supreme Court just predetermined the winners of next November’s elections. It won’t be Republicans. It won’t be Democrats. It will be corporate America.”
Mr. Chief Justice, even Republican operatives have raised eyebrows from your ruling.
“I don’t believe that the ruling will fundamentally change the outcome of the elections given the obscene amounts of money that was spent independently in the last two years by everyone,” said Jim Innocenzi, a GOP strategist in Alexandria, Va. “You could argue that since everyone has figured out a way to get around the rules, we’d be better off with full disclosures of who is really paying for this stuff and let everyone just promote whatever cause they want.”
“There is only so much advertising space available the last 30 to 60 days [before an election] anyway, so all the ruling does is jack up the cost of 30-second commercials at the end of the campaign,” he said.
In all due respect, sir, I don’t think your ruling will change democracy as we now know it as some of your critics are claiming.
Certainly, I would never dream of calling your decision the worst since Roger B. Taney who was chief justice in 1857 and wrote the Dred Scott decision.
Nor would I even hint that your ruling was an advert case of judicial activism in defense of First Amendment rights.
Come to think of it, you five men certainly contributed your fair share of improving one of our economic sector’s downsides which is the lack of advertising revenue for newspapers, television and political websites. I read that $2.6 billion was spent during the 2008 presidential campaign. Potentially, you guys have raised that ceiling immeasurably. Ah, unintended consequences.
In closing, I have one tiny question for you, sir.
What makes me equal to Rex Tillerson, chairman of the board and CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp.? Of course we each have one vote. It’s what each can do before the vote that diminishes my value compared to his. That, sir, is not fair.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Jerry K. Remmers
85 Responses to “An Open Letter To Chief Justice Roberts”
Jerry,
A thoughtful post as always but I have to wonder. Why is it bad for Rex Tillerson to spend millions on campaigns (or at least that seems to be your implication) but not bad for Gerald McEntee to do the same thing ?
Seems if you don't like one you shouldn't like the other, yet I see no mention of Mr. McEntee and his organization.
An Open Letter to Chief Justice Roberts
Sincere thanks to you and the other members of the Supreme Court for striking a blow for the Bill of Rights and freedom of speech in America.
Best regards,
DaMav
Thanks Jerry, in this case the supremes should hide their heads in their robes. At least when the slaveowners were printing flyers, people could avoid them.. Now, potentially every minute, for two years, that I try and watch Seinfeld episodes or BSing With The Surviving Dancing Stars of Cucamonga, will be constantly interrupted with lying campaign commercials. Have you no pity?
Fixed it for you.
Great. How about “Freedom of Speech for all”. Sounds like a great idea!
And, Jerry, I AM an Exxon shareholder. Not once, not ever, did Rex ask my opinion. (I guess he is too busy doing things to annoy Sil. and the people wanting to turn used kitty litter into sustainable energy.)
As you know, I'm not the brightest light on the block. I was debating using reference to unions but decided against it because it is a sticky widget. As I understand the decision. it is unclear whether corporate entities need stockholder approval and unions need membership votes for buying ads, etc. That's why I punted. It's not that I don't like one or the other. The argument I heard was that the unions would not be a major player — or at least more in the future than in past years — because they lack the deep pockets, say, of the Exxon's.
To answer your question, I don't think it is fair that special interest groups whether business, labor or trial lawyers, hold the power of the purse to influence elections. Financial restraint seems less corrupt. The perception of them buying elections is contrary to my sense of fairness. — Jer
That includes foreigners, extraterrestrials, and machines also, right? How about the right to vote for all?
Anytime you expand rights to others, you are diluting the rights of citizen natural people. Is that really so hard to understand?
The First Amendment:
The right to buy speech; all the speech, any time, any place.*
brought to you by Goldman-Sachs, SEIU and The Supreme Court of The United States of America LLC
We're talking about speech here, not voting. A totally separate issue as you know.
And yes, foreigners, Dennis Kucinich, and the Massachusetts Democratic Party all should have freedom of speech.
In seriousness, all of the groups you mentioned, such as they exist, already do have free speech, so there is no expansion or dilution involved.
Corporations are NOT PEOPLE…
BTW how many corporations existed when the constitution was written? And why didn't the Founding Fathers put something in the constitution defining corporations and their rights?
Nobody said corporations are people. They are legally organized groups of people in pursuit of a common purpose. And the SCOTUS has ruled that they have speech rights under the First Amendment.
I understand that you disagree, and have every right to express your opinion free of government interference, whether you are a person or a group of persons.
Will this be this court's Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott case, a case that will live in such infamy it will tarnish the notion of justice in this country until it is repealed by more courageous, intelligent and patriotic Justices?
Since we are agree that they are not people, can we now agree that they don't have any rights, just privileges and obligations…
Money talks. It's not so much the writing/speaking speech that I'm worried about as much as the bribing, I mean, funding part. It would be better to forbid non-naturals from controlling the selection of our legislators. They'd still be allowed to cheer and pontificate from the sidelines, of course.
Get a DVR recorder tape everything in advance and proceed to wear out the fast forward button when you view. Then chuckle to yourself as you waste all those corporate dollars.
Many of the political woes of today are the result of the way political campaigns are financed. Teddy Roosevelt had it right when he said, “All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law.” He also proposed public financing of federal elections. I am not holding my breath for a constitutional amendment to make this possible; but I think it would go along way to stop corruption in our government. But when it is all said and done, we still have the best government money can buy
“non-natural” is that original? I love it!
All the case before them had to do was clear out the ill-formed campaign laws set up by McCain-Feingold. They didn't have to cut away over 100 years of established campaign laws that at least tried to create a level playing field. Someone wrote an article, was it Ambinder, where the matter could have been fixed by either a scalpel or a meat axe, and the majority Justices went for the meat axe.
Thing is, the response in the political sphere, outside of the far Right who worship corporatism, isn't all that positive about the ruling. Especially the noise from critics noting how this opens up our elections to foreign (aka terrorist, Chinese, and even GASP French!) financing.
Time for an Amendment convention among the states. An amendment fixing our political campaigns and elections, for one thing, limiting when, where and how campaign financing can take place.
I checked WSJ and Politico on Wednesday, which are the places that I look for more right-wing views (well, Politico is divided, but they're often labeled), and there was a lot of division among the conservative crowd. Where did you see agreement?
DaMav
“Nobody said corporations are people. They are legally organized groups of people in pursuit of a common purpose. And the SCOTUS has ruled that they have speech rights under the First Amendment.
I understand that you disagree, and have every right to express your opinion free of government interference, whether you are a person or a group of persons.”
I see you believe freedom of speech means making logically inconsistent statements and refusing to address the holes to your logic when pointed out.”
Groups of people already have their individual right to free speech. They also have the right to voluntarily donate to causes they find appealing. Corporate spending is not the same as stockholders have no recourse to a CEO's decision to spend share-holder money without consulting them.
If your bank decided to run ads in an election by using money from your account, I take it you'd be content with that corporation's “right” of free speech. Of course, banks are limited by law from doing that. Too bad every other corporation in America doesn't have that same limitation. The theft of shareholder money occurs before a stock owner can sell. As a stock holder, every dollar spent by the CEO for HIS political agenda means one less of my dollars for my contribution to free speech. The effect is simple, corps gain their “right” of free speech by taking money from stockholders without their consent. How is speech through theft protected under the Constitution?
If you can't address the simple logic in this, why not blather on somewhere where people don't analyze. The price of free speech is paid for by logical defense of one's argument. If you can't make that defense, people quickly learn what you say has no value. I've responded to you in two other threads but have never seen a response.
When the case was brought back for more testimony Ginsberg asked again if the government really thought it had the authority to ban books. The answer was, “Yes we do, but trust us: we would never prosecute anyone for a book.”
That answer did not go over well.
Jer,
One small disagreement. This is a case of radical judicial activism. Overturning 100 years of established, and well working, precedent cannot be viewed otherwise. To fully understand this, you must realize that this case came to the Court on very narrow grounds. After briefing and argument on those narrow grounds, the court, on its own and without prompting from the parties to the litigation, brought this broad issue up on the Court's own. It was the Court that set this up, forced the parties to brief and argue it, contrary to the original context of the case, and parlayed it into this radical departure from precedent. Legally the decision can be rationalized (though not justified), but the process to get there and the overturning of 100 years of working precedent is pure judicial activism.
When next someone whines about wanting “strict constructionists” on the Supreme Court, this case should instruct that radical activism come from both the left and the right. There are no strict constructionists only those who, through judicial activism, attempt to legally justify their own agenda.
Stockholders have no recourse to a CEO's decision to spend share-holder money without consulting them.
They have exactly the same recourse they have when, say, Nancy Pelosi spends taxpayer money in a way they don't like: vote her out.
Unlike corporate “elections”, elections for public office are not rigged through the contrivance of proxy voting.
Apples and oranges in my opinion, Dr. J.
So vote yourself, Tidbits. The only reason we have proxy voting is that voter apathy is so high.
Dr J,
Let us examine corporate voting v. public voting.
In public voting, we ascribe to the doctrine of one-man-one-vote. Am I not correct that in coporate voting, the doctrine is one-share-one-vote? Therefore a person with 1000 shares casts 1000 votes whereas the person with one share casts only 1 vote. And, am I not also correct that the largest share blocks in most publicly held corporations are institutionally owned, not individually owned? And therefore do the institutional investors and big money investors not control the outcome as opposed to the individual small investor.
In public voting, each individual with an interest (living in the district) is allowed to vote. Am I not correct that a large percentage of individuals hold their interests in corporations through “funds” where the stock is held in the name of the fund, rather than the individual, i.e. the “fund” votes, not the individual?
In the context of this thread, political funding, am I not correct that stockholders rarely know the political leanings of corporate officers? Nor are those leanings described as part of the annual report for voting at the annual meeting.
In public voting, voters have a choice of candidates. Am I not correct that in the vast majority of corporate elections the corporation presents a single slate as opposed to competing slates of candidates? More of a single party process than a contested election as we see in public elections.
Still sounds like apples and oranges to me.
Hey, Teddy was cool. He even rejected the Nobel Peace Prize until he was out of office.
What you are referring to as the “holes in my logic” happens to be my agreement with the Supreme Court of the United States.
- “stockholders have no recourse” – they can of course fire the CEO acting through the board or vote their shares against the CEO, or sell their stock. They could even direct the CEO that no corporate funds be spent on political purposes, but few would be that dumb.
- “bank… run ads using money in your account” and associated rant — Purchase of stock is voluntary. Unless you own 100% of the company the dollar per dollar argument is invalid; if the CEO is doing something the stockholders don't want they can fire him/her and hire a new CEO. How can the CEO steal stockholders money legally when they hire and fire the CEO?
What 'simple logic'? Logical defense of my position is scattered all over this board and elsewhere. If I missed responding to you in a thread it was inadvertent, and I'm sorry. At least I didn't respond to you with a post full of hectoring personal insults.
As a stock holder, every dollar spent by the CEO for HIS political agenda means one less of my dollars for my contribution to free speech.”
Of course they also give to charities and launch products which an individual shareholder may not agree with.
Your local church or charity may do needle exchanges which you may not like. Although not equivalent with corps, there are many things that we don't get a vote on.
But, bottom line, the Supremes think corps, like Frankenstein, are alive.
Still sounds like apples and oranges to me.
It's not apples and oranges, it's different variations of fruit salad on both sides.
Sure, public voting is one-man-one-vote, except that lately we've been letting women vote too, but only if they're citizens, they're of age, they've bothered to register and so on. And it used to be only property owners could vote, not that philosophically different from the one-share-one-vote rule for common stock. In short, voting rights aren't quite so clean.
And sure, most people hold stocks through so-called institutional investors like pension plans or mutual funds and delegate their voting rights to the fund managers. Just as voting party tickets is more convenient than researching individual candidates, holding funds is more convenient than holding stocks, receiving the annual reports, researching issues like the boss's politics and how the company is spending money, and voting directly. I don't begrudge anyone the convenience, and I do the same myself, but we are all making choices to hand our authority to someone else.
As to whether we have a choice of directors or whether the mechanics of corporate governance make it easy for us to get more involved, your points are well placed, but they're all things we could change if we felt like it. The basic issue is that we don't flippin' care. It's easier and, apparently, more fun to do nothing and then complain that the wicked corporations are victimizing us.
There are no strict constructionists only those who, through judicial activism, attempt to legally justify their own agenda.”
Thanks for that clarification.
Here's a one page legal analysis of the “corporate” vs “person” issue in Citizens United for anyone interested, by Stephen Bainbridge, Professor of Law at UCLA.
http://tinyurl.com/ycdfk4t
DaMav
“they can of course fire the CEO acting through the board or vote their shares against the CEO, or sell their stock. “
Voting a CEO in or out has nothing to do with the theft of my money. For a corporation to use its “right” to speak, it must take funds from its shareholders, even if some do not want to spend those funds taken. Corporations run according to a kind of democracy based upon one share, one vote. A single shareholder cannot fire the CEO, but a single person can have his right to free speech abused. The constitution requires protection of all person's right to speak, not just those who vote with the majority. Remember, this whole thing rests upon the legal concept that money is speech.
Like I said, the current decision allows a CEO to directly reduce my return on investment to produce the corporation's right to free speech without any recourse or remedy to the individual. Thus, corporations can only exercise their right at the expense of others. That is unconstitutional by definition.
Why should a corporation have the right to speak if that right is only derived through theft?
Okay, now you're sounding like a lawyer! Also, well said (of course, since I agree with you, that's not exactly an objective opinion.)
Totally agree, both Republican and Democratic appointed justices have been extremely activists for a long time. That happens when they are nominated by Presidents and voted in by a Congress with partisan interests. A strict constructionists would likely never make it past the partisan system in play now.
That being said, it is nice to be able to applaud a SCOTUS decision that is in agreement with strict Constructionism, no matter what the motives.
Well done SCOTUS
Oops, you're right ProfE, classic cross examination technique. I must be more subtle lest I disclose too much. Perhaps a bit of poetry will confuse the masses. This on the Supreme Court's decision:
“It weighs upon the heart, that he must think
What uproar and what strife may now be stirring.
…
We have offended, oh! my countrymen!
We have offended very grievously…”
S. T. Coleridge, “Fears in Solitude”, 1798.
Hi Leo,
Strict construction? Only humans can speak, thus protecting free speech applies only to humans not artificial entities. Now that's strict construction…linear and absurd, but strict construction.
What this decision really amounts to is one of two plausible interpretations, the other being the more individualistic (libertarian) view that the Bill of Rights is intended to protect individual citizens, not artificial constructs.
Only humans can speak, thus protecting free speech applies only to humans not artificial entities.
How about freedom of the press? Can only humans press?
Like I said, the current decision allows a CEO to directly reduce my return on investment to produce the corporation's right to free speech without any recourse or remedy to the individual.
If voting the guy out doesn't count as recourse, what would? Having him killed?
If that's how you feel you should never join any group that you don't completely own and control.
The designated leaders spend funds all the time, not only in business type corporations, but in unions, in churches, in charities, and in political parties. This isn't theft, but delegated authority to spend, and in the case of a for-profit corporation it is explicit. The stockholders delegate authority to the CEO to spend money. They can restrict that authority as well and often do. That's the way organizations work. It's a feature, not a bug.
And ultimately, you as a stockholder can sell your stock and walk away if you don't like the way the corporate officers spend their money. Nobody is forcing you to buy or hold the company's stock. Ultimate freedom, and unlike in the public sector where you have one vote but have to renounce your citizenship if you don't like the way the money is being spent and move to another country. You can't just decide not to pay your taxes if you don't like that money is being spent on ACORN or the War, for example. But if you own stock in XYZ and you don't like that they contributed to Bush or Kerry as the case may be, you can sell it and walk away. There is a place for both arrangements, and that's what makes us such a great country imo. Even better now that groups are no longer being denied freedom of speech.
And BTW. I recognize I'm in the minority here at TMV, but you might want to consider that most American agree with the SCOTUS decision giving corporations the right to donate before trying to dismiss this as some kind of fringe viewpoint.
Public Agrees With Court: Campaign Money Is “Free Speech”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/Public-Agrees…
Well, Dr J, we agree on the free press issue. Now, how exactly does that extend to unlimited campaign contributions to political candidates? There is no speech or press involved…just money changing hands.
Please stop the shiboleth of voting corporate officers out. For the average person, that is simply not an option. Here's a hypothetical. Corporation sells 10 million shares of stock. 5.1 million shares owned by 10 institutional investors, 4.9 million shares owned by 500,000 individual investors. So long as the ten institutional investors agree, the 500,000 individual investors can do nothing about the corporate heirarchy.
An extreme minority control corporate elections and policy. The average individual investor has virtually no say. In theory you are correct, but there is a vast chasm between theory and reality when it comes to corporate control.
Only humans can speak, thus protecting free speech applies only to humans not artificial entities.
But do humans lose their rights when they join a group?
Consider this thought experiment example. It is illegal to discriminate against an individual because they are a woman under civil rights laws. Fact. Now, if a group of women join together to form a corporation would it be illegal to discriminate against that corporation because it was owned by women? Of course it would be. Their individual rights followed them into the group, even though the corporation is technically not a human being. They did not lose their right not to be discriminated against just because they formed a group.
food for thought
Now, how exactly does that extend to unlimited campaign contributions to political candidates?
It apparently doesn't. But it does permit a non-profit to make a politically oriented film.
So long as the ten institutional investors agree, the 500,000 individual investors can do nothing about the corporate hierarchy.
Those institutional investors are not working for Martians. They're managing shares on behalf of tens of millions of individuals who can and occasionally do pressure them to change tack. One factor that helped end apartheid in South Africa was people pressuring institutions like the University of California to divest its endowment money. Last year there was a similar movement to dry up funds finding their way to Darfur.
Obviously global-scale changes like that require mobilizing a lot of individuals. Just like any other political cause.
Agreed. Apparently my sarcasm missed its mark. — Jer
DaMav,
Respecting your thought, the example is false. I am at liberty to do business with whomever, or whichever corporation I choose, and for whatever reason. What I cannot do is discriminate against “individuals” in hiring and employment practices. If I choose not to business with Corpoaration A because it is owned by women, but rather choose to do business with Corporation B owned by men, there is no action Corporation A can bring against me.
If I choose to get my car repaired at a shop owned by men, rather than a shop owned by women, the shop owned by women cannot sue me for doing so. Nothing in the law requires me to do business with a particular corporation. Your example is just not legally sound.
So if I own a large commercial property and a corporation owned by women wants to rent office space and I tell them I won't rent to women or companies owned by women (or any other protected class) that's not a legal problem?
Or I own the only hospital in town and I refuse to allow any professional corporation owned by women doctors to admit patients.
I believe I would be sanctioned for such activity. You have responded with a narrow case where I would not — i.e. discrimination by an individual in purchase.
DaMav
The difference is that an organization whose stated purpose is political, AARP, ACLU, or Friends of Confused Conservatives have a stated purpose and my contributions are not made to increase my wealth. Investing in EXXON, Walmart, or IBM is a business proposition where I am purchasing part of an economic concern in hopes of enlarging my resources. The first instance is avocation, the second is business.
Your second point I addressed at least twice before. If I buy stock in XYZ and find out after a couple of months that the CEO has directed production of hit pieces about some candidate, selling my stock does not recoup the money he has spent. Since dividends are a function of gross minus expenses, my dividend is reduced. Remember also that the first time I may hear about this “expense” is in a quarterly report. There is no stipulation that this expense must be made public prior to the quarterly.
If you wish to argue that this reduction is merely a penny per share, consider corporations have have ten of millions of common shares. Steeling a penny 10 million times is theft on a grand scale.
If you wish to argue that his using this money to promote the business, please remember that no specification as to what that speech may pertain to is made. If I am the Catholic Church and own stock in some company, this ruling means a CEO can use some of the church profits to support a pro-choice position or candidate. Tell me again how this is free speech protection that doesn't directly degrade another individuals rights?
DaMav
“But do humans lose their rights when they join a group?”
Your thought experiment doesn't fly. How can an individual discriminate against a corporation? Not buying products from a corporation is not discrimination, it is choice. Criticizing that corporation is protected u8nder free speech.
Additionally, please explain to me how I am legally discriminating against a women if it doesn't involve some form of economic trade?
DaMav,
We can argue in circles till we both turn green about what is and is not covered by state and federal law vis-a-vis discrimination and we can cite examples one way and the other till the sun burns out. But, it's not the subject of this post.
One of my core values is individual liberty. One of yours appears to be expanding corporate rights. I have nothing against corporate rights, but when those rights serve to diminish individual rights, I come down on the side of individual rights. You will not knock me off my rock solid belief that people matter more than corporations, and I will not knock you off your rock of wanting to expand corporate power. We disagree. That's all.
Frankly, I find this whole discussion (perhaps not by you) that individuals somehow get their rights through corporate interests to be bizarre. Maybe it's just me, but I don't want McDonald's deciding what I eat, or Haliburton deciding when we go to war, or defense contractors setting our miliitary budget and targeting anyone who doesn't go along, or financial institutions supporting only those who will vote for bailouts and allow them to sell risky derivatives at the risk of the entire economy. I'd rather have elections decided by people than corporations, but that's just me…I'd rather live in a democratic republic than a corporate oligarchy, . In my view, big money special interests already have too much power over our government. The last thing I want is to give them more power over our lives and our government, as this SC decision does.