High Court Nominee is anti-free speech

[Revmitchell]

Solicitor General Elena Kagan, nominated Monday to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama, told that court in September that Congress could constitutionally prohibit corporations from engaging in political speech such as publishing pamphlets that advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.

Kagan’s argument that the government could prohibit political speech by corporations was rejected by a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in that case, and in a scathing concurrence Chief Justice John Roberts took direct aim at Kagan’s argument that the government could ban political pamphlets.

More Here

This anti-free speech nominee does not need to be on the high court.

 

[poncho]

And that is the truth! But ya gotta admit she is a perfect fit in the Obama administration. They aren't real big on allowing those who oppose them free speech to them we're just so many domestic terrorists plotting to overthrow the government. This actually turns my stomache some Rev. And I thought Barry Sotero or whatever his real name is was a constitutional lawyer.

 

[billwald]

Did she not make this statement as an EMPLOYEE representing her employer?

 

[Gold Dragon]

rejected by a 5-4 majority

4 of the current justices voted in support of her case so whatever criticism exists out there for her about this case also applies to 4 of the current supreme court justices.

I'm interested in seeing what this case was actually about and will have a look.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Individuals have free speech. Corporations are not living individuals and I agree with her on this one. The recent court ruling was anathema to individual freedoms of speech. Corporations can use their money to silence the will of the people.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Very interesting case!

Basically this case lead to the supreme court overruling case precedence and existing law that restricts campaign spending by unions and corporations.

NY Times: Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit
...
The ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, overruled two precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions.
...

Kagan was arguing on the side of upholding existing law and case precedence. The final ruling basically overturns 20 years of restrictions on corporate spending in campaigns and allows them to use their vast resources to influence US elections unfettered.

The reasoning of the court was that existing law and case precedence about corporate spending in elections is a violation of the 1st amendment.

Whether pro or con this decision, it is pretty apparent that this ruling will vastly change the way US elections will be conducted.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Individuals have free speech. Corporations are not living individuals and I agree with her on this one. The recent court ruling was anathema to individual freedoms of speech. Corporations can use their money to silence the will of the people.

Corporations are legal entities that have certain rights. corporations can't silence the will of the people what they can do is afford to be heard. they have more access to capital than individuals,

 

[Gold Dragon]

Corporations are not living individuals and I agree with her on this one.

The legal personhood of the corporation is a very interesting concept that has far reaching implications. Your support of this ruling depends on whether you trust or distrust corporations as "persons".

 

[billwald]

> corporations can't silence the will of the people

Corporations can change and direct the will of the people which is why they spend trillions for advertising.

 

[targus]

Individuals have free speech. Corporations are not living individuals and I agree with her on this one. The recent court ruling was anathema to individual freedoms of speech. Corporations can use their money to silence the will of the people.

The same can be said for unions.

Dues are taken from all union members regardless of political affiliation and used for the political purposes of the union bosses.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The same can be said for unions.

Dues are taken from all union members regardless of political affiliation and used for the political purposes of the union bosses.

I agree .... neither corporations nor unions should be considered to have free speech. They are not living individuals.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Very interesting case!

Basically this case lead to the supreme court overruling case precedence and existing law that restricts campaign spending by unions and corporations.

You are quite right. Where are all the protests from people on this BB who say they are conservative.

In this case the 'conservative' judges were very activist judges ... something conservatives are supposed to oppose.

Kagan was arguing on the side of upholding existing law and case precedence. The final ruling basically overturns 20 years of restrictions on corporate spending in campaigns and allows them to use their vast resources to influence US elections unfettered.

The reasoning of the court was that existing law and case precedence about corporate spending in elections is a violation of the 1st amendment.

Whether pro or con this decision, it is pretty apparent that this ruling will vastly change the way US elections will be conducted.

Yes, this has made the individuals contribution rather meaningless as they cannot approach the level of giving and thus influence of corporations and unions.

 

[Revmitchell]

Corporations cannot speak. Only people

 

[carpro]

Corporations are legal entities that have certain rights. corporations can't silence the will of the people what they can do is afford to be heard. they have more access to capital than individuals,

Much like a labor union.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Corporations cannot speak. Only people

So does this mean that once again we have taxation without representation? It sure sounds like it. If corporations are required to pay taxes, then they should have a say in who writes the laws that determine the taxes. After all, that's what it means to have representation.

Here's the issue: Everyone agrees that individuals can speak. But what happens when two individuals get together? Can they speak? What about three? Or twenty? or 200? Do those 3, or 20, or 200 suddenly lose their right to pool their money and speak because they filed some paperwork with the government and file taxes a particular way?

What if my wife and I (two individuals) have a corporation? Are we allowed to speak or did we suddenly lose our right because we filed the government paperwork?

And if corporations don't have free speech in campaigns, do we apply that to PACs such as MoveOn or some other? What about political campaigns? I assume they are incorporated for legal purposes. If only individuals have free speech, then campaigns cannot solicit money from people and spend it on advertising. Only individuals can buy an ad. And if corporations don't have free speech, then a campaign cannot be incorporated.

Those who know me know I am not a conspiracist, but to me it seems but a short drive from preventing taxpayers from exercising their right to free speech to tyranny. We already had one revolution over the requirement to pay taxes alongside the prevention of a voice in government.

We probably shouldn't go down that road again.

As much as other people spending their money on things that are distasteful to us, it is wrong to not follow the constitution on this. The constitution is to protect.

And once they take away the rights of corporations to speak freely, how long you think it will be until they come after you as an individual? And since the corporations can't speak for you, who will? You don't have a loud enough voice for sure.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Much like a labor union.

Isn't the difference that most corporations get their money from people voluntarily, by enticing them to buy their product or service, whereas labor unions get their money by force, by requiring their members to pony up the bucks.

 

[Salty]

Isn't the difference that most corporations get their money from people voluntarily, by enticing them to buy their product or service, whereas labor unions get their money by force, by requiring their members to pony up the bucks.

I fully agree! In addition - in some States or Commonwealths, you are required to join the union to even get the job.
If I don't like the candidate McDonald's is supporting, I can always go across the street and eat at Burger King

 

[Mississippi John]

> corporations can't silence the will of the people

Corporations can change and direct the will of the people which is why they spend trillions for advertising.

Amen billwald !!! Propaganda is a very powerful tool used by these corporate giants..(who have no soul) to manipulate the masses.

 

[Pastor Larry]

> corporations can't silence the will of the people

Corporations can change and direct the will of the people which is why they spend trillions for advertising.

They can, but only by consent of the people. They can't force anything.

But this is irrelevant anyway because it is immaterial to the issue.

The issue is that the government cannot be in the business of regulating speech, whether or one person or of 1000 banded together.

 

[Revmitchell]

So does this mean that once again we have taxation without representation? It sure sounds like it. If corporations are required to pay taxes, then they should have a say in who writes the laws that determine the taxes. After all, that's what it means to have representation.

Here's the issue: Everyone agrees that individuals can speak. But what happens when two individuals get together? Can they speak? What about three? Or twenty? or 200? Do those 3, or 20, or 200 suddenly lose their right to pool their money and speak because they filed some paperwork with the government and file taxes a particular way?

What if my wife and I (two individuals) have a corporation? Are we allowed to speak or did we suddenly lose our right because we filed the government paperwork?

And if corporations don't have free speech in campaigns, do we apply that to PACs such as MoveOn or some other? What about political campaigns? I assume they are incorporated for legal purposes. If only individuals have free speech, then campaigns cannot solicit money from people and spend it on advertising. Only individuals can buy an ad. And if corporations don't have free speech, then a campaign cannot be incorporated.

Those who know me know I am not a conspiracist, but to me it seems but a short drive from preventing taxpayers from exercising their right to free speech to tyranny. We already had one revolution over the requirement to pay taxes alongside the prevention of a voice in government.

We probably shouldn't go down that road again.

As much as other people spending their money on things that are distasteful to us, it is wrong to not follow the constitution on this. The constitution is to protect.

And once they take away the rights of corporations to speak freely, how long you think it will be until they come after you as an individual? And since the corporations can't speak for you, who will? You don't have a loud enough voice for sure.

It appears you might have missed my point. Crabby is trying to dehumanize corps and there by claiming they should have no voice as if the corp is strictly on paper. My point is corps are in fact people who have a right to speak.