Alan Grayson sure is fired up about the Supreme Court campaign finance ruling, and has a package of legislation he wants to advance in response:
Here are the bills that Congressman Grayson has introduced, and what they aim to accomplish:
1) The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act (H.R. 4431): Implements a 500% excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees, and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.
2) The Public Company Responsibility Act (H.R. 4435): Prevents companies making political contributions and expenditures from trading their stock on national exchanges.
3) The End Political Kickbacks Act (H.R. 4434): Prevents for-profit corporations that receive money from the government from making political contributions, and limits the amount that employees of those companies can contribute.
4) The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act (H.R. 4432): Requires publicly-traded companies to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than to promoting their products and services.
5) The Ending Corporate Collusion Act (H.R. 4433): Applies antitrust law to industry PACs.
Grandstanding, or do any of these have a chance? According to the Great Orange Satan, Conyers is on board.
Incertus
I’ll be shocked if any of them get more than 100 co-sponsors, mainly because Democrats work just as hard for corporate money as Republicans do, and there’s only so much populist fury to tap into, especially if you’re talking about a state-wide race with big media markets.
Could one of you lawyer types tell me, what would happen if–and this is even more pie-eyed than what Grayson proposes–Congress passed a law that took away corporate personhood, that said that corporations were not persons and were not entitled to Constitutional protections? Wouldn’t that negate the Supreme Court’s ruling?
rikyrah
go Grayson
Anna Granfors
..Big Bad John Conyers, King of the Harshly-Worded Letters and Ignored (and never followed up) Subpoenas?
Nope. They don’t stand a chance. Really, really wish they did, though.
Mike E
Look, Lucy’s holding that football for me!
Brien Jackson
3 and 5 clearly won’t pass muster with the courts, and I’m sort of doubtful #1 would either. But hey, I’m sure Grayson will raise some money off of the proposal, and get lots of nice blog posts written about him, and that’s what really matters right?
Napoleon
My shoot from the hip take on which ones of those would not be found unconstitutional on the basis of what I know of that decision is 4 is the only one that stands a chance, and maybe 3 depending on how he does it.
keestadoll
My only concern here is that he’s carpet bombing a bit and the mission, as good as it is, will get mired in Grayson having to fend off reflexive response to such a broad
“attack” on long-standing campaign financing–what’s the word–“traditions.”
Incrementalism, IMO, is called for.
aimai
Incertus,
I haven’t read the Scotus decision but it was my impression that the decision rendered such future laws “unconstitutional.” That is, they didn’t just rule that under previous laws, statutes and precedents corporations had, in the absence of legislative definition, been treated as persons but they ruled that corporations were and in the future must be treated as persons *legislatively*. That is, if congress were to try to revist the issue legislatively the corporations could sue to overturn the legislation on the grounds that it was now unconstitutional.
aimai
me
1 and 2 won’t pass. 3, 4, and 5 might but probably not.
earlofscruggs
Grandstanding maybe. But then what would be “feasible” (if that is assumed to be the opposite of “granstanding?)
you’d get the “Thinking About Perhaps Recommending The Forming of An Exploratory Subcommittee To Cautiously Investigate the Possibility Of Using Strong Language To Urge For The Creation Of A Committee To Debate The Potential Impact Of Formal Disapproval Of Some Of The More Extreme Ramifications Of Unlimited Campaign Contributions Act.”
go Grayson, do what’s right!
StonyPillow
Aimai’s right, Grayson’s not even close. Every one of these will be overturned by the Roberts court. The only answer is a constitutional amendment.
The First Amendment shall only apply to living persons.
Demo Woman
@Brien Jackson: Why do you think 1 would not pass supreme court muster? It seems that states and local governments put excise taxes on everything.
Brien Jackson
@aimai:
I haven’t read the full decision, but that’s not really possible. Corporations are statutory creations, so Congress could, if they wanted, abolish corporations outright. They could certainly alter statutes in such a way as to invalidate the “personhood” precedent, but I’m not sure that would be a good idea in the whole.
Incertus
@StonyPillow: You might have to be more specific than that, if aimai’s take on it is right. You might have to go with “The First Amendment shall only apply to living humans.”
Brien Jackson
@Demo Woman:
Because I’m not sure you could apply a tax on political activity to only a narrow set of actors.
Kevin
If you want to pass #3, you need a version that says people on government assistance can’t vote.
Oh? Not an option? Then it’s not an option for corporations either.
SiubhanDuinne
@earlofscruggs #10
You left out “bipartisan.”
jeffreyw
Pure gandstanding, but that’s good. We need some populist fire from the dems. Have to agree with stonypillow, an amendment is required for any of these to stick.
El Cid
Why are all you libruls just trying to deny freedom of speech which is money to this class of person, which is no more than a mere group of people?
Brien Jackson
@StonyPillow:
Sweet. I can’t wait until a Republican Congress and President outlaw the Democratic Party. That’ll be wicked awesome.
El Cid
And personally I’d see most of thus being dismissed as now un-Constitutional.
At this stage, I will not be surprised if suddenly the Commerce Clause isn’t taken up and re-interpreted so that we can get back to the good old limited government we had in the late 1800’s.
They might as well — this Supreme Court could fundamentally roll back the entire federal government and people would do no more than complain and watch their neighbors all break out the rebel flags.
aimai
Brien Jackson,
I think that’s wrong. Taxes on political and other activities routinely appply to “only a narrow set of actors”–non profits have to follow different laws than for profits, some utilities are forbidden to spend certain monies on advertising or politics.
Also, again, I think you are wrong on whether the government can actually, realistically, do anything to limit corporate expenditures on politics now that the Supreme Court has ruled. I doubt whether *even if they would* the congress could eliminate corporations legislatively. But even if they could “abolish” corporations they won’t because the entire international financial and industrial world rests on corporations at this point.
aimai
El Cid
Most importantly, I DRIVE A TRUCK!!!
burnspbesq
Grandstanding. No doubt about it. But not necessarily bad. Sometimes you have to do something outrageous to draw attention to a problem.
I think the decision is horrible political and social policy, but I’m not convinced it’s bad Con Law. And those who are continuing to freak out over the idea that entities can have legal personality need to think in a more targeted way. As in, ask yourselves the following question: if a corporation is not a legal person, how do you sue it when its defective product maims your kid? Or, if the labor union of which you are a member is not a legal person, how does it sue when your employer tramples all over your workplace rights?
jeffreyw
@Incertus: “… only apply to living humans.” But what about the unborn? Are they not living humans? Not to mention the undead. Are they to be left out?
Bellwetherman
Laws enacted by Congress will not be enough, since the majority of the Supreme Court delights in thwarting the intent of Congress. We need a Constitutional amendment.
General Winfield Stuck
I will await with breathless anticipation
The Send Wingnuts To Gitmo Act — anything less would be appeasement and Obama FAIL
Bondo
@Brien Jackson:
Colorado passed a ballot initiative (2008’s Amendment 54) that reads a lot like #3 except it didn’t specify for-profit. It was considered a deliberately anti-union measure. I thought it sounded alright and rather think the above is too narrowly worded. How can we say it is wrong for corporations to give to campaigns but ok for unions? Neither is a person in the logical sense.
The constitutionality of this measure has been challenged and I am not aware of what has come of that or whether it is to be implemented at this point.
Incertus
@jeffreyw: As the unborn cannot speak or worship or gather together publicly, I think they’re excluded from protection already. And I have no problems with zombies’ speech or worship being protected, though I think restrictions on their gathering are warranted in the interests of public safety.
El Cid
What would also be fun is how any politician backing any of these or even deeper “natural person” reforms would suddenly see a billion dollars or two (especially after the SCROTUS rolls back soft and maybe hard money donation restrictions on corporations) into a field of 20 primary competitors and/or the opposition, as well as a [hired] force of hundreds of super-loud, super-angry, super-fat and super-pasty American Revolution re-enacting teabaggers shouting at the receptionist 24 hours a day.
I am also a proud Helot-American.
Joey Maloney
Even if all 5 bills were to pass the House by 450 to -15, so what? We know what’ll happen in the Senate.
That said, go Grayson. More like him, please.
burnspbesq
@aimai:
Mostly agreed, with one caveat. Corporate form could be done without, although it is a convenient way of raising capital from a large number of investors and providing a readily understood governance structure. The crux of the biscuit is limited liability. Without that, there is no investment. Even Lloyd’s, where members operated without limited liability for almost 300 years, has recently evolved into a structure where most members are limited liability partnerships.
burnspbesq
@Joey Maloney:
Gee, I need to get out more. I wasn’t aware that the membership of the House had been expanded from 435 to 465. ;-)
jpe
Grandstanding. The bills are either unconstitutional (a 500% excise tax on the exercise of speech? Not gonna pass constitutional muster), reduplicative (several of the bills re-ban corporate contributions to candidates, which is already illegal), or moot (regulating corp PACs is fine, but it’s a lot less important in the wake of Citizens United, since the corps can just spend directly)
The package of bills only makes sense as a PR move, since on the legal merits they’re awful.
El Cid
Give the SCROTUS at least a bit of credit. They ain’t gonna go to the trouble of making such a precedent-setting ruling if it were so easy to fix. They’re in this for the long game — they’re truly here to reshape this country. I mean, god-damn, these are [in spirit and outlook] the same people who fucking handed the Presidency to their preferred choice and then said neener neener no precedents no takebacks.
jeffreyw
@Incertus: Ah, but if money can be considered a form of speech, then it is but a hop skip and a jump to the notion that speech impaired humans cede their speech right proxy to televangelists.
geg6
I don’t give a damn if it’s grandstanding or feasible or neither. I’m just damn glad to see a goddam Dem who is willing to spout some fiery rhetoric. People need to see some fight in the Dems. It’s what the whole problem stems from at this point. Good for Grayson. I support him.
Legalize
It’s all grandstanding. Look at the names he proposes for the acts. This is to get himself more face-time on the tee vee. Nothing will come of any of this.
Brien Jackson
@aimai:
Well that may be. I’m not a lawyer or anything, it just strikes me that levying a tax on political activity based on who is conducting the activity is pretty Constitutionally dicey, but it may be the case that differing based on the tax-classification of the organization is ok. How about this for an alternative; a progressive excise tax on all political contributions, advocacy, etc. based on the amount spent?
Well obviously they won’t, but yes, they could simply repeal the provisions creating legally recognized corporations in the first place.
Brien Jackson
@geg6:
Yes, clearly what America needs is two major parties who don’t give a shit about the Constitution if it doesn’t give them their desired policy outcome.
Dan
“Could one of you lawyer types tell me, what would happen if—and this is even more pie-eyed than what Grayson proposes—Congress passed a law that took away corporate personhood”
Probably wouldn’t matter. The court has held in the past, especially in Belotti which overturned bans on issue ads by corporations, that the first amendment essentially protects the speech itself, regardless of where it comes from. Besides that, taking away corporate personhood altogether isn’t really possible without eliminating corporations entirely, which clearly is a pretty bad idea.
“The First Amendment shall only apply to living humans” idea also wouldn’t work, because Congress cannot change the meaning of a constitutional provision without an amendment
Lisa K.
Even if he has no shot, it is really nice to see someone who does not have his panties knotted up in a wad of apprehension, caution and fear.
Go Gray-
Chris Johnson
Well, my reaction is ‘ehehehe! That’s awesome!’
Good on him. Make the media talking heads repeat the names of the acts. One drawback to the Rove/Orwell style of naming stuff contrary to the intent is that you build public acceptance towards what you are secretly undermining. Go ahead and call it the ‘Banks Can Suck My Dick Act’. It’s not like the ONLY effect is whether it passes. Get the words out there into ‘serious’ discourse.
Dan
Also, i just want to say thta I think people are overstating the impact of this ruling. Corporations were already allowed to spend unlimited amounts on issue ads, which could be as extreme as “johnny candidate will destroy america with his policies. Call his office and tell him we won’t stand for it”.
And yet, individual corporations haven’t really done this. You don’t see any ads paid for by Goldman Sachs talking about how financial reforms advocated by Barney Frank are going to destroy the economy. You had corporations like the chamber of commerce doing issue ads, so now they’ll do some direct “vote for or against this candidate ads” instead, but does that really make that much of a difference?
geg6
Brien Jackson: Since I have no fear that any of Grayson’s proposals will come to pass, I really don’t give a damn about how ant-corporatist this stuff sounds since it’s a message that Idiot America can understand and perhaps get behind. Which might lead to more Dems in Comgress and the White House where they will appoint the next SCOTUS justices who may have chance to re-visit this matter. But feel free to ignore the politics here. Who cares what the public thinks or supports, right? We don’t need no stinkin’ public support, right? We smarty bloggers and such know what’s best, right? And the great majority of indendents who aren’t politically engaged or who choose emotionally aren’t needed, are they?
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
El Cid:
Fix’t. ;)
@jeffreyw:
No shit! What about the unborn child of the unborn child who will be the child of my child once it is born?! They have a right to be heard! Same with the undead, otherwise Republicans wouldn’t have a voice and couldn’t moan BRAINS!” at town halls and such.
Gotta be fair!
Dan Robinson
These bills have all the chance of a snowball thrown across Hell, but all I can say about them is “A-fucking-men. About time somebody started speaking for the People.”
Steaming Pile
Of these, #3, #4, and #5 have the most merit. #1 and #2 are obviously unconstitutional, and should never see the light of day. Passing unconstitutional shit just to make a statement (or drive a wedge) is what Republicans do.
I would expand #3 to mean any form of corporate welfare, to include tax breaks, regardless of their purpose.
#4 ought to be passed pretty much as is. We have a right to know who is throwing what money where when it comes to influencing government.
#5 is a no-brainer.
Brien Jackson
@geg6:
I’m not really sure which of those concerns carry more weight than respecting the Constitution even when it requires unpleasentness, but ok. We are all Dick Cheney now I guess.
Joey Maloney
@burnspbesq:
I wrote four-fifty to NEGATIVE fifteen, if you look closely. That would be your literary hyperbole in action, donchaknow.
@Chris Johnson:
‘Banks Can Suck My Dick Act’
Not in favor of this, except for the cute assistant manager at my branch.
Brien Jackson
@Steaming Pile:
I’m not sure about 3 and 5. For #3, I’m not sure you could really mount a public interest argument in fvor of it. Yes, the government has an interest in prohibiting bribery of public officials, but that’s already seperately illegal. And the idea that campaign contributions, whether direct or indiret, to legislators constitutes bribery is a pretty difficult one to spin legally.
As for #5, I suppose it could pass muster, but I’m not sure it could if it were limited only to PACs with a particular mission/interest.
HRA
Whatever happens to these bills, I have to admire Grayson’s spunk and could only wish there were more like him.
Royce
Grandstanding, or do any of these have a chance?
Excellent framing, Cole. Right out of the gate, too. Trashed the only going effort so easily. And you got that word right out there up front. “Grandstanding” … perfect!
Glad to have you on our side. I guess. Too bad you discredit moving the Overton window so loudly, because you are very good at it yourself.
Beeb
#4 is fine. The Court upheld mandatory disclosure; Thomas was the only dissenter on that. And something like that will probably pass. Heck, the SEC could require that itself for public companies. As for #3, the Court has previously said that some limitations on speech are OK if tied to government spending. Remember the family planning gag rule? But I don’t think a total ban on political speech would be a constitutional condition, and FWIW, I don’t think it should be. I do remember the gag rule and the concerns expressed at the time by libraries, arts groups, etc., and I also remember Congress’ use of the spending power to require universities to allow military recruiters on campus.
I leave to others the question whether an excise tax targeting speech would be constitutional. I doubt it, but I don’t know. And the other two really are grandstanding (not that there’s anything wrong with that.) I don’t think Congress wants to make the enormous gift to the London and Tokyo stock exchanges provided by #2, and I don’t see what would be accomplished by #5. After Citizens United, PACs are obsolete for anything but direct campaign contributions, aren’t they? At least until the next case, which will probably remove limits on those too.
For those who want a constitutional convention to reexamine the First Amendment, that seems to me a dangerous road. In this political climate, we’re more likely to wind up with prayer in schools and Christian propaganda on public property than with a limit to corporate spending. JMO, YMMV.
Mr Furious
If nothing else, this will earn Grayson an open invitation to appear “Countdown”…hell, Olbermann will make him a guest host…SIR.
Brien Jackson
@Mr Furious:
Doesn’t anyone ever wonder why GE is so happy to give a mouthpiece to these supposed great anti-corporate crusaders?
henqiguai
@StonyPillow (#11):
Getting all science fictiony and stuff, what about the future incarnation of sentient computers (a.k.a AI) ? We potentially leaving them out ? (Yeah I know this is silly, but how much studying of XML in one weekend can you do without losing it ?) How about The First Amendment shall apply only to sentient entities ? Of course, that begs the question as to the precise definition of “sentient”.
colby
Ugh, Cole just asked the question. And it ain’t his job to help sell Grayson’s policies.
That being said, this is the *right* kind of grandstanding. It’s the kind of stuff that actually CAN move the overton window to the left, so even though they won’t pass Congress, pass Constitutional muster, and may not even be the best ideas, I’m fine with Grayson doing it.
But anyone who isn’t, whether they have actual concerns or just questions they want answered, ought to say so. And that’s clearly the case even if it makes my preferred policy choices harder to enact.
Mr Furious
@Brien Jackson: Because there is a limited market for left-leaning commentary such as Olbermann and Maddow, but only as a fraction of overall programming. There is NO market for left-leaning programming overall (see: America, Air).
The second Olbermann or anyone else doesn’t pay the frieght, they’re gone.
That’s my best guess, anyway.
JasonF
The problem with “The First Amendment shall only apply to living persons.” is that even if you don’t think Goldman Sachs or Exxon Mobil ought to have a voice in our electoral process, you probably want the ACLU or the NRA to be able to make its position on candidates known, and you probably want MSNBC or the News Corporation to be have free speech.
As a practical matter, I don’t really like the Citizens United decision, but I’m not sure how you draw the lines that would need to be drawn if we wanted to keep Goldman Sachs out but let the ACLU and MSNBC in.
de stijl
I think the SCOTUS should go whole hog and accept corporate sponsorships. Decals on the robes, sell the naming rights for the building – the whole nine yards.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, brought to you by Carls, Jr. (Fuck You! I’m Eating!)
Justice Antonin Scalia, brought to you by Brawndo (It’s got electrolytes!)
Justice Samuel Alito, brought to you by Starbucks
Justice Clarence Thomas, brought to you by Costco (Welcome to Costco. I love you.)
Of course Thomas is a shoe-in for the Costco gig because he is an alumnus.
And over on FNC Greta Van Susteren could be like: Well, it started off boring and slow, with the petitioner trying to bullshit everyone with a bunch of smart talk: ‘”Blah blah blah. You gotta believe me!”‘ That part of the trial sucked! But then the Chief J. just went off. He said, ‘”Man, whatever! The guy’s guilty as shit! We all know that.”‘ And he sentenced his ass to one night of rehabilitation.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
@henqiguai:
You want to exclude Birthers, Teabaggers, Republicans and most Democrats?
BR
Gotta say, though, Grayson learned a thing or two from George Lakoff about language and framing.
Dems need to learn from Grayson on that – how to name your legislation to have impact.
Joey Maloney
@DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal): “Sentient” means “feeling”. The Birthers etc. have got that part down cold. It’s the “cognition” thing they haven’t quite gotten the hang of yet.
gaffer
Burnspbesq @ 24
It’s bad Con law. It has always been bad Con law. The Declaration of Independence led to the Bill of Rights, without which the Constitution would not have been ratified. Both of the former are premised on the Natural Rights of Man.
The fallacy of the SCOTUS decision can be expressed quite pithily.
Rights are only endemic in humans. Those rights also confer responsibilities. We as citizens, in some cases, permit limitations on such Rights to promote the “general welfare.” Other Rights are near absolute. The Government is constrained from limiting them, because they did not grant them. They exist within us.
Corporations are intangible and not sentient, a CREATION of Governmental to either be fostered or eliminated at its whim.
Corporations are granted privileges, with which come obligations.
Privileges are not the same as rights, and the argument is no different than the privilege to drive a car. No one forces you to apply for a driver’s license, no one forces anyone to incorporate. If limitations of the corporate form are too restricting one may forego it.
henqiguai
@DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal) (#62):
Oh, hell yeah ! ‘Cause, really, if you can’t demonstrate at least minimal intelligence (not just biological reflexive responses), you should not be allowed near the machinery of governance.
ETA re: #64 –
And, hence, my comment on the definition of “sentient”; I dislike the inclusion of ‘feelings’ or some such; my cats have feelings, but they don’t get to vote.
Blue Raven
Why restrict the amendment to the First only? “All statements and amendments to the Constitution in which ‘of the people’ is used may only apply to
living personsindividuals.” Loopholes, people. Close ’em early.DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
@Joey Maloney:
I’d like to discuss this with you more but I have an important appointment with my bong. ;)
CalD
I wish there were some way to ban money not just from business, but also from all out-of-state interests except national political parties in all congressional races. I think it’s a disturbing trend that more an more often, congressional races now tend to become proxy wars for ideological agendas that often have little to do with the concerns or sensibilities of the people actually voting. People should have more latitude to decide for themselves who they want representing their state in congress.
eemom
Perhaps the Court’s next move will be to invalidate the antitrust laws. If corporations have the same fundamental rights as flesh and blood persons, they should have the right to get married. Male and female corporations, that is.
The Raven
I also have an e-mail from Grayson, “Coming Soon: “The Distinguished Senator from Saudi Arabia.” Appealing to bigots much, are we? Though of course he’s right–it will be very hard to regulate campaign money from domestic corporations with large amounts of foreign revenue, or foreign-owned domestic corporations.
By the way, I believe the usual legal term for flesh-and-blood people is “natural persons.” Interesting question what will happen if there are ever AIs. One could write the proposed amendment, “The rights granted by the constitution apply only to natural persons. Fictitcious persons have only the rights specifically granted by their charters and the laws of the appropriate jurisdictions.” Justice Stevens is exactly right in saying that the Framers had no problem distinguishing between the two.
Chris Johnson
Hey, I’m okay with incrementalism :)
Chad N Freude
@eemom: I had a similar thought. Perhaps only corporations whose CEOs are of opposite sexes could marry. Zoning laws are now unconstitutional: you can’t prohibit a corporation from moving into a previously all-natural-person neighborhood, like tearing down the house next door to put up a smelter.
Brien Jackson
@gaffer:
That’s not true at all. And if you actually think about it for a second, that’s a rather frightening standard.
Chad N Freude
@Chris Johnson:
Banks have always had dicks of their own. See Fields, W.C.
Chad N Freude
@Brien Jackson: Well, HUMAN rights are only endemic in humans. Animals and perhaps plants have their own deity-given rights. The rights of business entities are Human-given (don’t recall any accepted sources for business rights being given by God), which the SC seems to have overlooked.
How come if they’re going to overturn precedents, they don’t overturn the one that says corporations are persons?
Brien Jackson
@Chad N Freude:
Well we’re not talking about human rights, we’re talking about Constitutional rights. And there really isn’t any precedent in US history for the notion that Constitutional rights only apply to singular human beings.
Put it this way; if the Bush administration had decided to fine GE $1 million every time Olbermann criticized them on MSNBC would you have thought that was Constitutional? After all, if non-human entities don’t have Constitutional rights, then the freedom of the press can’t extend to GE, right?
b-psycho
Wow, the last three of those I could actually get behind…
russell
What’s wrong with grandstanding?
Also, if we’re passing a new Amendment, we really ought to state that *all* rights guaranteed under the Constitution and Bill of Rights apply only to living natural human persons.
The 1st is not enough, the 14th was invoked frequently in the later 19th C to establish corporate personhood.
For purposes of interpreting the US Constitution, “person” should mean living natural human person, period.
Brien Jackson
Well, goodbye free press.
kay
I don’t think it’s serious proposal, and I think grandstanding is a mistake.
Democrats have been talking for a year. It doesn’t matter if they’re talking tough or advocating a more conciliatory approach, the time for making statements without the votes is over. They used that very successfully while in a minority, but it doesn’t work as a majority.
They’re going to lose the audience, if they haven’t already.
They have to pass legislation and address a problem.
My hope is the quieter members of Congress are drafting something real and counting votes. My preference would be they actually have the votes before any announcement of any kind. I don’t want to hear another bold announcement of what they’re going to do, and then the inevitable failure and bickering.
I want them to complete a task.
Stop talking and start working. The way to regain credibility is to point to a result.
All this populist ranting does it convince people (as if they needed convincing) that they can’t effect change and can’t govern. Taking a page from the minority Party playbook won’t work. Democrats don’t have that luxury. They’re not in a minority. All this bloviating and inaction is sure to get them there, though.
sparky
interesting that no one has even mentioned Glenzilla’s take on this decision. he does raise some good points as to why (a) this may not matter much and (b) from the perspective of a First Amendment absolutist it was ultimately the better decision. i am not yet convinced by his argument, but then i haven’t finished reading the opinion yet. one thing i can say is that it is readily apparent that the law at issue was unconstitutional.
edit: @Brien Jackson: yup.
Chad N Freude
@Brien Jackson: My understanding is that the rights enumerated in the Constitution were a reification of the concept in the Declaration of Independence that “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”, i.e., Constitutional rights were considered human rights.
Re:
Then why was it necessary for the SC to deccide that corporations were persons? The Straight Dope has an interesting, albeit convoluted, history of how it became a precedent. The last paragraph of the SD article is interesting:
Chad N Freude
@sparky: It was cited in another thread a couple of days ago, but didn’t generate any discussion. I suppose we were all too busy venting.
The Raven
@Brien Jackson:
The idea that fictitious persons have any human rights was invented in the 19th century as a rationale for various corporate abuses, and in fact this is the first Court to ever formally say that such rights existed, though previous decisions have hinted at it.
I wonder if the Roberts courts would decide that corporations have Second Amendment rights, and are constitutionally allowed to form private armies.
Hominds.
Croak!
kay
This is what scares the hell out of me:
“The much bigger implication of the decision is likely to come in judicial elections. In the states that elect judges (about two-thirds of them), most voters pay relatively little attention to the races, but the contests, especially for the state supreme courts, tend to be vicious and expensive. Corporate interests often have a huge stake in the outcome, because most personal-injury lawsuits and other civil cases are handled at the state level. The whole notion of electing judges is tawdry and awful; Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has devoted a great deal of energy, during her retirement from the Supreme Court, to urging states to move to appointive systems. Corporate freedom to dump untold amounts of money into these races will make bad systems worse. ”
Toobin
My state elects judges. I didn’t know 2/3rds did, and I’m not happy to hear it.
I’d like to protect against this decision, and, luckily, that can be achieved at the state level.
I think we have to stop electing judges, immediately. There’s an upside to electing judges rather than appointing them, it gives a (admittedly theoretical) shot to a candidate who isn’t a big-firm well-connected lawyer, and that underdog possibility appeals to me, so it’s a shame we have to stop, but we have to stop.
Because this could be an absolute trainwreck, state-level, judicial races. State courts are where regular people can actually afford to get in and make a claim. They need protection from this decision.
Stan of the Sawgrass
Hmm— coffee’s kickin’ in.
I really like Grayson, and yes, it’s grandstanding. It’s making a point by being loud and outrageous. Let me point out, if I even need to, that this is how the Gopers managed to arouse the Teabaggers. Sell the outrage.
Of the points, I think 1) and 2) fly in the face of the Citizens United ruling, and aren’t worth discussion. But they move the outrage.
3), 4), and 5) may have some merit, especially by pointing up the self-interest of corporations that get public money.
What I’d REALLY like to see is the end of attack ads that end with “this message paid for by Voters for Responsibility.” I think if the majority contributor to the PAC is Aetna, it should have to say
“this message paid for by Aetna.”
There, free speech protected.
Brien Jackson
@The Raven:
So? That doesn’t really invalidate anything. It sounds really simplistic, but a good way to think of the question is simply whether or not you think the government has the authority to prohibit People For The American Way from criticizing government policy or lay fines on companies that publish journalism the government doesn’t want printed. If you don’t think non-human entities have Constitutional rights, then there’s nothing prohibiting this, since the organizations wouldn’t have any claims to speech/press protections. If you don’t think the government is, or should be, able to do this, then you’ve accepted the principle of extending Constitutional rights to non-human entities.
The Raven
@kay: “The much bigger implication of the decision is likely to come in judicial elections.”
krawkrawkrawkraw. What she said. For Washington Staters, votingforjudges.org. I wonder if VFJ will start reporting campaign contributions, now.
The Raven
Oh, BTW, coverage at Scotusblog.
kay
@The Raven:
I love judicial races, because every once in a while, you can slide someone decent past Our Corporate Overlords :)
They can be stealth races, in a sense. The best candidate can win.
Nevermore, Raven.
kay
@The Raven:
And the quote is from Toobin, not me.
The Raven
@Brien Jackson: You’re making it up. “People For The American Way,” as a PAC, is explicitly permitted to undertake certain kinds of political activism. Other types of corporations were not. Now, all commercial corporations are permitted to do so. I wonder what the Roberts Court will decide about advocacy from other sorts of non-profits? Bet the conservatives find some reasons why other non-profits still aren’t allowed. They may even find some way to silence the unions.
bago
If corporations have all of the rights of citizens, then WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE!?!?!?
And what do you do with corporations incorporated outside of the US? What about corporations that employ non-citizens?
Chad N Freude
@Brien Jackson: What seems to be missing here is a distinction between the rights of natural persons and the rights of non-natural-person entities. I don’t believe that the Creator of corporations endowed them with certain inalienable rights, but the Constitution can certainly grant rights to corporations (and to persons as well) that are not inherent in their creation. The First Amendment is an example. It asserts a right applicable to both individual persons and to corporate bodies, and it is not an inalienable right as it can be circumscribed by libel laws.
A question for the Constitutional lawyers: Does a corporation have the right to refuse to produce incriminating business documentation under the Fifth Amendment?
Morbo
Go, Grayson. In the immortal words of the Beastie Boys: “Kick it!”
Chad N Freude
@bago: I think the most horrendous aspect of this is the right of US corporations that represent non-US business interests being able to promote candidates who will support non-US owners’ interests that conflict with interests. (Although, per Greenwald, I suppose that’s being done circuitously now.)
Brien Jackson
@The Raven:
Ok, so let’s imagine the government decided they didn’t want them or other groups publicly criticizing government policy, and passed a change tomorrow barring them from engaging in political activity for the purpose of criticizing the government. Would you feel that to be an action permissible under the Constitution?
Brien Jackson
@Chad N Freude:
I’m not really interested in discussions of natural law principles, but suffice it to say there’s no such thing as an inalienable right.
The Raven
@Brien Jackson:
Under the jurisprudence in force prior that the Roberts Court just declared invalid in Citizens United, this would have been unconstitutional. Now, who knows? It’s all up for grabs, and the conservatives of the Roberts Court are deciding on politics and whim. Some of the most terrifying things about this decision are what it says about the Court’s conservatives. If our highest Court decides by politics and whim, then there is no law, just politics and whim.
Croak!
Chad N Freude
@Brien Jackson: True, but wasn’t the concept used as a justification for asserting some of the rights in the Constitution?
Chad N Freude
@The Raven: Which is the clearest counter-example to the idea of inalienable rights. The SC has declared the US no different from the Islamic Republic of Iran or Venezuela.
Brien Jackson
@Chad N Freude:
No, not really. It was used in a political document attempting to raise support for independence.
b-psycho
@The Raven:
As if there was “law” before…
Uriel
@The Raven:
I was going to make a similar point, then I remembered Xe/Blackwater and Haliburton, and realized the answer would be something along the lines of “Of course they do, why do you ask? Do you just hate free enterprise, or America itself?”
Liberty60
Yeah, I am developing quite the mancrush on Grayson.
I think there is a lot of value even in bringing bills that stand little chance of passing; forcing the other side to debate, on our terms, is a tremendous boost.
Its like when they introduced bills to ban flag burning, or to declare America a Christian nation we laughed, but it forced the debate onto their turf, in their language,which was deadly for us flag-burning Jesus hating hippies.
Forcing the GOP to defend Wall Street is an absolute necessity to de-legitimizing the Tea Party, which is trying to grab the populist banner for themselves.
burnspbesq
@gaffer:
Sorry, friend, but you’ve completely missed the point.
You may want to go read the First Amendment before we go any farther.
What part of “Congress shall make no law” are you having trouble understanding?
Or, to be a bit less snarky, what is the compelling state interest that justifies these restrictions?
Emo Pantload (fka Studly)
@Mr Furious:
Olbermann & Maddow make money in their time slots. Absent that, they’d be outta there real quick-like.
Air America was done in my sloppy management and programming. Here in Seattle, we have a local all-lefty talk station, and its line-up was diversified enough over hosts from different distribution networks that its schedule is only minimally affected. (Ron Reagan Jr’s drive-time show was Air America, but his show has already been resurrected.) And I’m reading of other lib-talk stations that will get along just fine w/o AA.
But give AA credit for getting people to discuss lib-talk radio, launching Al Franken’s Senatorial run, and blessing us with Rachel Maddow.
(Apologies if this has already been addressed; I’ve not yet read the rest of this thread.)
Mr. Sifter
Pure grandstanding
The S.C. ruled that corporate contributions to political committees is protected speech. I don’t agree with this decision. In fact, I strongly disagree with it, but this is the law.
Taxing speech is unconstitutional IF the purpose of the tax is to prevent or inhibit the speech. Clearly, in this case, the purpose of the tax is to inhibit(“mind your own business”), not to raise revenue.
This is just silly. We have better things to do with our time.
brantl
The amendment that “only living humans have civil rights” should be the way to go, not just free speech rights. Corporations can’t be subjected to law as people can, they can’t be jailed. As long as they aren’t subject to the same restraints as people, they don’t get to be people. Period. The only need for the amendment is that we have crazy, corporatist people on the Supreme Court.
Mark
BTW I just thought I would throw this link out for those that want it:
http://www.actblue.com/page/saveourdemocracy
libertyann
Grayson is rich and doesn’t need this job so I think his motives are genuine.
But we need to take away personhood from the corporations (foreign ones too)
and strip away anti-trust protections from insurance companies.
I know that some of these provisions might work through reconciliation but the senate poses a problem also.
He’s right though. This should be a top priority because even congress members with good intentions will be intimidated by all this money.
libertyann
libertyann
Liberty60
Yeah, I am developing quite the mancrush on Grayson.
Tee Hee! me too only being a woman I call mine a “political crush”
libertyann
Lisa K.
Even if he has no shot, it is really nice to see someone who does not have his panties knotted up in a wad of apprehension, caution and fear.
Go Gray-