Yes, yes, everyone knows that in Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court split 5-4, on the same old lines, and decided that the First Amendment mandates that corporations and unions should not have limits on how much money they can use to grease the political wheels in their favor. Lets set aside the First Amendment arguments and discussions for a moment. I just want to shine a light on one of the nation’s biggest douchebags, Mitch McConnell. He said, of the decision:
“For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process,” the Kentucky Republican said. “With today’s monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups.” (source)
Yes, Mitch. For too long, big corporations have just been locked out of the political process. Its a good thing that the Supreme Court protected their deeply threatened rights.
By Email
By RSS Feed
The Legal Satyricon 
Marc,
I am not a lawyer, but this case brings up a situation that I don’t fully understand.
As I understand it, this case determined that corporations (and unions) are, in some sense, equivalent to “people” in that they have first amendment rights. However, in other situations, they are definitely *not* equivalent to people (For example, they can’t be put in jail.)
So, why have we decided that under some situations we treat organizations as individuals and other times not? Is there any logic to it?
-Richard
Well, there *is* sort of a logic to it. I don’t agree with it, as I agree with your logic more.
But, the logic is that people have free speech rights. Corporations are merely assemblies of people. People assemble in corporations to further a common goal, and thus the corporation speaks as the voice of all of its members.
You raise what I think is superior logic. Corporations are not actual “things.” Corporations are legal fiction, and their form is completely determined by the state. Thus, why can’t the state simply limit what corporations can do, and can not do?
But, I’m not entirely adamant on this. I find the debate over whether money=speech and whether corporations=people to be fascinating. I also find any encroachment on First Amendment rights to be deeply suspect. I’m really going to need more time to digest this decision before I come out with a firm position on it.
Marco,
Thanks for the response.
I’m glad that I’m not the only one who finds, as you say, the question of “whether corporations=people to be fascinating.”
-Richard
“For too long, big corporations have just been locked out of the political process.”
No, of course the big corporations haven’t been locked out. But most corporation are small businesses, and they have a heck of a time with these kinds of rules.
In fact, the big companies count on it. A large company like Target has little problem getting a municipality to use eminent domain to acquire property for a new store. But when the small business owners already there want to fight back with a referendum, or by running for local office, they have to avoid all kinds of landmines. Even just taking out a few issue-oriented ads can require lots of legal paperwork because there’s money involved.
So… Not a lawyer, nor anything like one. Programmer first, small business owner second in fact… But I’ve been trying to untangle the legal jargon in the opinion pdf for some time now, and I’m not seeing where it in any way addresses the actual individuals making the actual decisions to take investor funds, or moneys accrued through providing a good or service via employees work and using those for political purposes…
I myself surely couldn’t *conceive* of making a political statement *as co-owner of my business* if so much as even one of my employees disagreed… I mean, couldn’t it then be argued that I’d committed misappropriations of company funds?
It’s one thing to say a voluntary organization that’s set up both as for-profit and as a political company has the right to speak collectively on a given issue *if that’s what they were set up for* but isn’t this particular ruling rather breathtaking in it’s applied latitude?
Very much hoping I’m simply misreading this due to my unfamiliarity with the technical terminology ya’ll use… happen to have a good rundown on the full ramifications of this, or know a good place to do a bit more research?
[…] It is interesting to see who gets offended by what is written in a blog. For example, I am not surprised if some get offended by Marc Randazza’s writing; some of it is NSFW. I am not surprised if people get offended by Rate Your Students; after all, there is where many […]