Corporations Are A Legal Fiction, And Now So Is Political Speech
Fiction. As in, not real. Which is pretty much what the United States Supreme Court has made of our fundamental right to freedom of speech when political speech is involved. As in, made it not real but just a fiction of a concept.
From SCOTUSblog on this point of corporations being only legal fiction:
Justice Stevens, writing for the dissenters, turned Chief Justice John Marshall’s celebrated comment in the Dartmouth College case — in a ruling that actually favored the corporate form — into a belittling comment: “A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it.” [emphasis added]
Besides politicians, you know who will make a lot of money off of Citizens United? The first law school textbook publisher who comes out with the corporations law textbook needed for law schools, since they will have to change their corporate law curriculum to explain the Sybil-like personalities of the previously all-fiction personhood of corporations.
Some reading to do for more on this SCOTUS decision:
Ellen Miller (Sunlight Foundation): How the Citizens United Case Affects Money & Politics and Tranparency as We Know It
Micah Sifry (techPresident): Can the Internet Counter the Coming Gusher of Money in Politics?
Jill Filipovic, who is a lawyer: Democracy, It was fun while it lasted
Lawrence Lessig of Change Congress and Creative Commons: Institutional Integrity: Citizens United and the Path to a Better Democracy
On Angry Black Woman: There goes America’s democracy: I never thought I would be living in a dystopian cyberpunk novel!
From Open Secrets: Whose been giving corporate money within the previous confines
Three must-read posts from SCOTUSblog.com:
- The decision in plain English
- Lyle Denniston’s Analysis: The Personhood of Corporations
- And two round-up posts of other posts here and here
Be sure to keep up with the Sunlight Foundation, one of the premier organizations that focuses on transparency. They have posts related to Citizens United organized under a tag.
And be prepared to learn how to use every tool that exists to track contributions, and be prepared to boycott the corporate “people” giving in ways you don’t like. I still can’t wrap my head around how we’ll deal with foreign corporations.
Last but not least, this LTR from the NYT yesterday puts it best:
To the Editor:
Why is everyone up in arms about the recent Supreme Court decision allowing corporations unfettered monetary access to the American election process? To me this is a golden opportunity, as now our elected officials can sell corporate naming rights to their seats.
The junior senator from North Carolina? He or she is now the Bank of America senator. The senior senator from Alaska could be the Exxon senator.
The politicians may never have to fund-raise again! Think of all the time that will save to actually legislate.
Randy Levinson
New York, Jan. 22, 2010
Cross-posted from Writes Like She Talks.
82 Responses to “Corporations Are A Legal Fiction, And Now So Is Political Speech”
If you want a government than spends 3 trillion dollar a year and maintain a code of federal regulations that has 100,000's of pages, then you have to live with the idea of large corporations and that those corporations are going to influence the govenrment.
Do you really expect a government that consumes 40% of the GDP to purchase all of its good and services for mom-and-pop business or limited partnerships?
If you want smaller corporations, then you are going to have to massively downsize the government.
I totally don't get what you're saying.
The concept of corporations was intended to enhance capitalism, not democracy. The majority in Citizens United has completely conflated an economic system with a governmental structure. Electoral politics was designed for individuals to have one person, one vote, not for corporations to have any influence in electoral politics.
This decision would be moot if we could actually trust both the politicians who receive the money and those who give the donations. But they are so used to voters tolerating and not punishing them for quid pro quo arrangements, implicit or explicit, with politicians that they've come to expect that admonishment is nothing but lip service. Who do we have to blame for that? A lack of allegiance to the integrity of the system – and that lack of allegiance to the integrity of the system can be seen as lacking in individuals and donors of all sizes all across the political ideology spectrum.
I fail to see what the whole procurement process has to do with anything. Many things can be made “blind” so that these things like donations don't matter. But we've come to never trust such systems because people, corporations find ways around them.
That is the crux of the problem – infidelity to principles that would allow donations if the people who were making the donations and those receiving them could ignore exactly that and just do with the money what you're supposed to: try to get elected and then serve, everyone, admirably, honestly and with respect for the system. period.
Freedom of speech means exactly that, and of course political speech, and criticism of the government and of public officials, was and is the most important form of such speech, which is fully protected by the Constitution. What's blatantly, obviously, transparently unconstitutional was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court last week, and there is no legitimate complaint, denial, rebuttal of this.
Eeeeeexcept every single person in a corporation, from the CEO to Heathcliff over at accounts receivable, still have as much free speech as they want.
I mean how can a corporation be a person, like Mark Steyn? I could kick Mark Steyn in the nads (and no jury would ever convict me, because, seriously; *Mark Steyn*), but how would I be able to kick Blue Cross in the nads?
“infidelity to principles”
Also I have noticed that no one talks about the dumb-as-a-rock voter that allows TV advertising to manipulate him. The fact that TV advertising works, even false advertising, is a symptom of a polluted electoral process. Ron Popeil will not die broke even though nobody admits to buying his junk.
I'm not saying that I will move to another country if this SCOTUS decision isn't somehow overturned, but absolutely we need to take some responsibility for understanding who is behind what we see and hear. Media literacy is more critical than ever and there are a number of states that are on the cutting edge of getting their population to be literate. I actually believe that blogs have been a huge source of fuel to that movement. Check out New Mexico's effort, for example:
http://www.nmmlp.org/
You wrote, “What's blatantly, obviously, transparently unconstitutional was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court last week, and there is no legitimate complaint, denial, rebuttal of this.”
What do you think they found DLS? I think the majority deemed corporations to be persons like me who should have all the same fundamental rights that I have. I think that's wrong, I think that's beyond the founders and the four corners and the intent of democracy. Corporations are a statutory creature, not sentient beings otherwise covered by the Bill of Rights.
Especially if we can't pierce the corporate veil. Which is why I want to see that veil fall permanently now, given Citizens United. If they get to spend money like individuals, they should be held liable like them too.
The SCOTUS took away my freedom of speech, totally and utterly, simply by placing a “person” next to me with an very loud bullhorn. My voice is now drowned out by a “person” controlled by Cesar Chavez (CITGO) or the Saudi's or Japan or whomever. Agents of foreign governments no longer have to register; they're here and they are immortal, bloodless, and not in any way citizens. Last time this happened was Italy in the 40's.
I know that corporations can already speak in court, claim rights and take upon legal obligations (like persons) and that they do have personhood in jurisprudence. But I find the idea that they could assume speech of this kind peculiar, and the ramifications are staggering. Everything bad or sinister has a tendency to accumulate over the years.
Anyway, I had a mandatory brush with matters of law during my tuition and I realized that jurisprudence is essentially about language, and literally tons of it. Between the basis of American law and this decision lies the kind of documentation that would probably not fit in my current room.
If you are the type to let someone with a very loud bullhorn take your freedom of speech away from you then you lost it before this decision. The special interest groups, rich individuals, and media bias took it away from you much more then this decision will.
Incidentially, Corporations have had free speech for a long time, it is only their political free speech that was restricted, and at one time even that was a given.
You fear your own free speech loss, but would silence the free speech of others in the misguided hope of protecting your own. There are more small corporations then rich corporations, many are non-profit, some are simply small family business, all silenced without any proof that they had in any way corrupted the political process.
Corporations are not “bad” just because they are corporations, and we should welcome their knowledge and views in the political process as we would any other group. If we feel their view is biased we should weigh it, as we should any, but they should have the right to give that view, because it may be important.
Q: “[H]ow would I be able to kick Blue Cross in the nads?”
You might have missed my suggestion for a more ambitious example of health care reform.
A: Federalize it.
wynterz; “Corporations are not “bad” just because they are corporations, and we should welcome their knowledge and views in the political process as we would any other group.”
Hellooo????? What happened “By the people, for the people? Corporations, including foreign corporations are wealthier and have much more power (especially with this ruling) than the average American. Corporations look after their own interests (which means profit), not the interest of real people. America has seen time and time again how corporations have exploited Americans (both workers and consumers) only to be reigned in by people who elected officials to pass laws…. such as child labor laws, usury laws, etc. Now that corporations can “own” politicians laws of this nature will become obsolete because if Mr. US Senator stands up to a corporation in favor of a real person, then XYZ Company (and all the other companies) will fund the campaign for Mr. Wannabe Senator.
I suppose you are aware that other associations of people get to have a political voice separate from the people that are in that association.
Associations represent the people in them, but that does not mean that associations and the people in them have all of the same views, they may not even have the same information.
Case in point, recently many people in the AARP had a different view of the health care reform bill then the AARP did. Should the AARP have been banned from presenting its view? The AMA, or many other organizations.
they should be held liable like them too.”
I am on your side on this one, although I wonder if most Dems are against, and most Reps for this ruling.
More important, there may be a silver lining in all this.. Corps like Exxon, Union Carbide and others that cause damage to people or the environment, may have more of their officers liable for jail or fine time. Piercing the corporate veil may mean a pitchfork in the rear for some of them.
Thirdly, since you are local official, perhaps you can answer the question I been asking on other threads:
can campaign frequency and length of time be limited (across the board), a la limiting noise of a boom box or construction site timing because it is intrusive. (Think, cellphones banned in designated railroad cars) Also, you and I can be sued for libel and defamation, does this ruling mean corps can more easily be sued and possibly restrained from further advertising as an individual can be.
I'm sure that I don't understand all your references, but I do agree with this image of a the “person” the Court is allowing to be next to you has a bullhorn the size of which we will never be able to rival. And are not supposed to. There's just something so intuitively incorrect – the machinations the majority had to go through to get there…ugh.
No question – that's what “term of art” means – and the concept of corporation is exactly that, and it is a creation the same as Avatar – the plug can be pulled or electrified, but it's never a real human and there are reasons for that. Again, it's just unnatural to treat corporations this way.
But there are logical conclusions that come from your assertions in this comment that fly in the face of democracy and intent of why corporations exist in the first place.
For starters, one individual can multiply his or her political speech repeatedly and without using a dime of their own money if they sit on multiple boards of corporations. That is not something intended by the founders of this country, or by any notions of how a Republic is to function.
It is also not how electoral politics is to function.
This decision throws the notion of one person one vote completely out the window and for what reason? For what reason? There is no legitimate answer for that, because the notion of the personhood of a corporation is a complete statutory creation that can and should be dictated by the extent to which it exists for our economic needs. It is not a political creature of any type and, frankly, as a person who supports the public financing of campaigns, should have only a limited role in our political system, esp. when it comes to electoral politics.
Hi StockBoy – hope you're well.
I agree with you and you do a great job of highlighting what is so wrong about this decision: corporations exist for the purposes of capitalism, our economic system, not for the purposes of our democracy, our form government organization.
But these groups have entities that are specifically devised for being the political arm of those organizations. The members of the organizations can and do indeed leave the orgs when they feel the orgs are not acting in concert with their opinions. How do we do that with corporations? Well – I guess they'll find out when we boycott and picket them etc. However, unless we keep monopolies from forming in a number of industries, we'll be even more constrained from influencing them with our buying and withholding from buying power.
I have seen extremely little on this decision from the right – I am just as curious as you to know what they think, but I have to say, given the reaming the Tea Party supporters have been giving special interests, I just cannot fathom how they can then support a decision like this. Anyone with links please drop them in the thread.
Asf or the 2nd point, I just think that personhood can't mean one thing and then not the other in the way the court has just interpreted it. It's completely inconsistent and frankly unfair. Do we really live in the US so that corporate entities can have control over so much? Limits on torts? Immunity for certain malfeasance? Gov't bailouts – everything – all for capitalism? I suppose this is what free marketers like – and maybe this decision serves the function of showing how absurd it would be to have a country run 100% purely as a free market – the individuals would be completely irrelevant, not stronger or more independent but more at the mercy of the businesses.
Anyway – getting too far afield.
As for your thirdly (can campaign frequency and length of time be limited) – on what basis do you think we could limit it? I don't know what legal basis there would be to do that – the only thing I can think of is to tie it to performance in one's current job or position but otherwise I'm not sure – would you want to have the political parties try to get their candidates to commit to something?
It's an interesting suggestion – I'm not quite sure what could be done – something to think about.
Finally – can corps be sued more easily and restrained from advertising – well – this is part of what I think should be explored. If they get to be people like you and me in the flesh for the purposes of political speech expenditures, then I say let's get some test cases out there to sue them for all these other things that real live people get sued for too that they are currently exempt from.
The political system could not survive without the economic system and the economic system could not survive without the political system.
Honestly, I am confused how people expect our system to work without corporations having a voice, they are part of our society, a very important part as a matter of fact. Their opinions are important too.
The decision does not affect “one person, one vote”, it is about political speech.
I agree the decision would be moot if we could trust politicians, and that is what we should be focusing on, demanding accountability from our politicians. Considering there is plenty of money spent by groups on elections without corporations, it isn't any better by stopping the political speech of corporations.
Let me come at this from another angle:
Profit is fine, it's what makes us a capitalist economy – we work to structure corporate law – rewards and incentives – so that people will form and businesses and take risks to create wealth for themselves and others, and the corporate entity, so that there can be more creation of wealth and businesses etc.
Ok.
But as the person/people who must pay for the goods and services that then create the success for the corporation/people who run the business, are you really okay with what you must pay going up or the quality of what you receive going down, so that profits can be used to influence…us as to whomever the corporation thinks we should support?
Is that really how profit should be used? Is that how you want profit to be used? Who is going to pay the price for this increased ability for corporations to have a political voice (they have been able to have a political voice just never this directly and in competition with my voice and your voice)?
I find these possibilities to be completely unacceptable.
I am not saying and I have not said that a corporation's opinion is unimportant. But the ability for that opinion to overwhelm my opinion and yours is unacceptable to me. It should also be unacceptable to people who buy the goods or services – or dislike the goods and services – that come from those corporations.
I don't know why you would think anyone is so naive as to believe that the decision doesn't affect one person one vote. Of course it does. If it didn't affect that, then there would have been no point for even having the lawsuit in the first place.
A person that is on multiple advocacy groups or in mulitple groups with the same view on a particular issue can do that anyhow.
Corporations did have a voice historically in politics, the government passed a law to stop their political views.
I believe you asked how the “right” felt about this decision? They seem as divided as the “left”. Take a look at the groups that filed supplemental briefs, how often have you seen the ACLU, NRA, US Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO filing briefs on the same side, that the law as it stands is unconstitutional on the points in question.
An ad by the ACLU was threatened under this law, I am not sure if they took it to court or if they just didn't publish it. The ACLU is a corporation. Citizens United itself was a non-proft corporation. The briefs provide specific examples of political speech of diverse and varied groups which were either silenced by these provisions in the law as it stood.
People, and groups of people need to be able to speak their political views, and silencing them simply because they are a corporation is not good for society.
But a person who was on multiple corporate boards was not able to – now, those who are on both multiple advocacy groups as well as multiple boards will have further amplification.
It is true that the restrictions on corporate speech has been in flux but I've understood that more to be because of not knowing how to do it, rather than not wanting it to be done.
I haven't really looked into the left or the right – I was just saying that I'm not aware of how differently it's been discussed from the left versus from the right. I believe another commenter raised that. Frankly, that line up of amicus briefs on the same side indicates just how wrong the decision itself is.
To say that any of these groups have been silenced is completely inaccurate.
What is it that you really want? I do not want more money in politics. I do not want more politicians feeling that they can't get elected unless they align with or take money from entities that have more money than I have simply because that's what it seems it takes as far as funds to get into office.
That goes against all the democracy is about.
Here is the thing, when I bought that “goods or service” that is all I was buying. I was not buying the right to control them, set their prices, or stop their political free speech. I didn't create their success, they did. The business gets to decide how to spend that money. I tend to think they'll be cautious. They do not want to alienate stockholders, customers, watch groups, or other factions of society.
The disclosure and disclaimer portions of the law stood. That gives people, the voters, the information they need in to give weight to the message. Yes, I give people credit for being intelligent, if they aren't then our society has already failed.
The decision does not add or subtract from the number of voters, it makes information available to the voter that was not available before. That normally is not considered a bad thing.
As I understand corporations, they are collections of stockholders and executives. They act in an collective influence as one “body” yes?
Ok.
Now, if any foreigners like oh…I dunno…Al Qaida posing as average citizens or even Bin Laden through a proxy decided to get in on the act, wouldn't it be weird, as well as a breach of national security to allow our enemies to stack our Congress via undue financial influence?
Wow SCOTUS way to grease the track for terrorists to affect our very governance. Their decision goes beyond incompetance, It places us directly in a position of national integrity/ security breach. I think even the Executive branch via the Commander In Chief could put a stop to it especially considering it blasts a huge hole in our ability to defend our national integrity. I'd call that an “orange” alert as it stands now. It could move to red very quickly as soon as proxies start buying up stock in companies and influencing elections via that mega-money and illegal [per Congress-enforceable 14th Amendment] “supercitizenship”.
What do I really want? Voters to have information they may need to make the best vote.
Money is in politics, if anything this decision may lead to industry being more open about their position on issues and their spending in politics rather then hiding it in legal but sometimes questionable ways. That may well be positive, if so.
I understand what you describe as your POV. I do not share your POV. But I appreciate you taking the time to express and explain it.
They already know how to disguise the speaker — through other corporations!
We do not need corporations in the equation to have information. Info I get from corporations I ignore – and many voters now will see it as more tainted than ever.
The industry be more open? Hardly. They will find ways to bundle $9,999 ads and efforts so they don't have to report. I live in Ohio – we've seen hundreds of thousands of dollars come into Ohio from over the state line in order to avoid limits. I have no idea where you see this good will of corporations – if they had this good will, why bother with the amicus in the first place?
Well – this issue began long before Obama was even in elected office – I'm not sure how responsible he is – that's a bit of a stretch, no?
But what about McCain and Feingold? McCain going around saying campaign finance reform is dead?
I wrote about this in 2006 and several times since but when I was at a forum w/Ohio Dem Party chair Chris Redfern and then Ohio Republican Party chair Bob Bennett and they were asked about negative ads and how do we stop them, Redfern – stop giving money to whomever is putting up the ads you don't like.
And that may be the best advice we can follow for the very immediate future while we figure out the rest.
Lets just say if me and my buddies were up to wiggling our way into total control of say, oh, a nation for example. And in order to get control of that nation we had to get control of it's elected body. And in order to get control of that elected body we had to embark on a decades-long strategy to infiltrate very slowly that body so that our actions wouldn't cause undue alarm.
Let's say that part of that strategy included befriending those we wanted to defeat via a trojan horse like oh, say McCain, and tout him for years as a moderate they can trust. And lets say that we know of a means that this group we mean to defeat may fight back…oh say the 14th Amendment's last line…and we wanted to convince this group they couldn't use that means. Maybe we'd get that trusted trojan horse to mock-challenge it. It would be perfect. At once we would gain the trust of those we mean to defeat and at the same time “convince” them they are powerless to fight back…
lol…
You know, Kurt Cobain said it best I think “Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you..”
As to corporations who are composed of foreign influences as well as domestic in time of war we need to remember the following:
Media advertising is a part of our electoral process. Our electoral process is part of our governance. Our govenance must not be accessed by potential terrorist interests
I don't think I was clear enough, so forget prior comment.
From http://www.law.umn.edu/uploads/wE/aa/wEaa1g7XB6…
***********
“(Art. I, Sec. 8., cl. 18.) This leaves
to Congress the judgment about what legal authority is
needed to make effective the president’s own powers,
including the commander in chief power. If gathering
intelligence about the enemy is an incident of the president’s
commander in chief power over the military, then
limiting the use of that power within the United States is
an incident of Congress’s Article I authority to legislate its
execution.”
***********
So if the sitting Congress found it necessary to intervene in time of war to allow the president to act as he sees fit to protect our govenance from foreign interests, all they'd have to do is convene to pass a decree as such. Just like with the numerous times they did this under Bushco, it should be a snap to allow Obama to order the FCC to close loopholes that might allow foreign influence.
Anyone in violation of that order could face federal prosecution. I believe, thanks to Bushco, a precident has been set.
I think you mean the FEC, yes?
They could be of assistance but the FCC has control over the media via airwaves and the internet. They cannot be used by terrorists to passive-attack our country themselves or via allies or proxies by influencing our electoral process which goes on almost soley through their jurisdiction.
Since monitoring of these venues is difficult at best, they represent an backdoor to our being invaded in a real and tangible sense. Especially like I said with this most recent video-vow of Bin Laden's to get to us any way he can.
Jillz said “I do not want more money in politics. I do not want more politicians feeling that they can't get elected unless they align with or take money from entities that have more money than I have simply because that's what it seems it takes as far as funds to get into office.
That goes against all the democracy is about”
How much should we distort our constitution to give people what they “want”? That was the question. There are limits on everything and where we draw that line is usually what cases like these are about. There is no new “person hood” for corporations, they have had much of that for years. The screaming has been about corporations but that wasn't even who brought the suit that came before the court. This case was about the government limiting the free speech of groups, associations, a gathering of citizens. It just so happens that corps fall under that definition. It's obvious that in theory govt shouldn't limit free speech , but for the possible consequences of that free speech. Even Stevens referenced that in his dissent. Stevens is just more concerned with possible outcomes than the actual constitution and always has been. This is a case of going by the “letter of the law” as it were and you won't here much from “conservatives” is because they must be of two minds on this issue. Obviously they don't want more corporate involvement but tend to like a constructionist view on the constitution. The result is standing by your principals means you have to put up with something you dislike. So? You get no points for standing tall if it's easy.
I'm still of the opinion that we need to amend the Constitution and revoke the legal right of “speech” via money by all entities. Grandma doesn't get to give Obama 10 dollars anymore. It is the only way to save ourselves for the corporatism that is taking over our country.
The more we see unions(auto unions bailout) and corporations(TARP) take from the average American, the closer we come to violent revolt against corporations…which is why we were give and I support the right to bear arms.
Our founding fathers knew this time would come.
FDR knew this time would come…
“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.”
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV and TechFaq360, Textbook Tutor. Textbook Tutor said: Corporations Are A Legal Fiction, And Now So Is Political Speech – The Moderate Voice http://bit.ly/7c0Ucl [...]
EEllis – your comment contains some truths with which I agree, except that those truths lead to the invariably conclusion of judicial activism. And that too is against democracy – SCOTUS is one of three branches. Corporations are a statutory creature. I prefer my statutes to be expanded in scope and application by legislators who directly represent me, not the nine member court – which is why we revile judicial activism as a general rule. This is why this Roberts court is being viewed as a judicially activist court that favors corporations and business – this is not a new observation by those who watch the court.
I disagree with the court's leanings in that direction and am angry at the hypocrisy it allows to foment on the ideological right.
I never stand here in my kitchen with my coat on having just taken my kids out to the bus and say that I'm being rationale and everyone should agree with me. I'm saying that people scoff at activist courts, this court has been activist in this case, they have given powers to an entity that is a statutory creature and whose existence as a person is due to our patronizing the entities or giving money to them. For those entities that are solely the value of the individuals who created it in the first place such as a nonprofit solely for an issue, why isn't the structure of what we've had adequate for their speeech? McCain Feingold and previous efforts reflected a greater majority and the fact that 24 states have restrictions also indicate a broad-base for restrictions.
The constitution was bent to accommodate an entity that is a legal fiction to begin with. I do not believe they are owed the same rights as me when it comes to political speech. But if the law stands that way, I look forward to making the case of making them people for the purpose of piercing the corporate veil of liability.
It is a slippery slope indeed.
Shannonlee – I definitely lean in that direction – I believe in public campaign finance – I admire Maine for its efforts though I need to study the results more. However, I agree – our system of capitalism requires there to be an unequal distribution of money among us 310 million citizens and 120 million or so voters (registered as opposed to eligible). So long as we allow money to be equal to political speech, we will be fighting this battle.
I'm all for rich people being rich. I don't fault anyone their millions, nor do I feel envy towards people that were born rich and live off the fruit of their grandparents labor. I just believe we must take private funding out of politics.
Believe me…my wife grew up behind the iron curtain. I know how f'ed up socialism is
The people who are peachy with this ruling are seriously without a clue. Once again, for those who may have missed it the first time
I give you Thomas Jefferson:
“The bank mania is raising up
a monied aristocracy in our country….
And their principles have taken deep root
in the hearts of that class from which
our legislators are drawn.
When the Legislature has made sale of
the people’s most valuable rights, when
they have assumed to themselves powers
which the people never put into their hands,
then indeed their continuing in office
becomes dangerous.”
Get it yet??? If not, keep reading as necessary for comprehension. Ignorance is not bliss.
One last time so as to make sure the corporate groupies get this.
1. Any organization that derives funds through voluntary contributions of individuals has the right to produce “free speech.”
2. Any corporation that derives its income through investment of shareholders does not have that right because the arbitrary use of invested funds steals that resource from its stockholders.
Voluntary contribution means I acquiesce to the purpose of the organization. Investment requires that my funds be used solely to produce profits for the corporation for which I am an owner. The current law makes no stipulation that a CEO must use corporate speech to propagate the company's agenda, so as long a CEO is free to say with corporate money what he wants to say, I as a stockholder am robbed of profits due me by corporate law.
In short, corporate free speech only comes about through the theft of investor money. Free speech via theft is not free speech.
I don't know why you're referencing socialism – our country is no where near it and those who think we are haven't in fact ever lived in one and are conflating economic and political structure. Frankly, it's a very boring argument to me, no offense – but again, I'm not sure why you're referencing it here.
I guess I don't really understand your comment about the rich and millions and envy. Again – I see the need to keep our democracy separate from our capitalism – it is the mixing of the two, the conflating and grafting one onto the other, that is problematic. Is that what you mean by taking the private funding out of politics?
Had never read that before – thank you.
Interesting equations but I agree with the sum which is that corporate free speech would involve either depleting the profits or increasing the prices charged for goods and services to pay for the political speech. Eck – the whole concept – who knows? Maybe corporations will reject, if we could get politicians to get back to their principles and work.