YOU, a sentient human being, have a right to free speech, an organization does not. You give money to Penny Arcade Forumers for Dems, speech undertaken by that organization does not have 1st Amendment Protections. PAFD is not a sentient human being and can be regulated to hell and back without falling afoul of the 1st Amendment. A candidate, as a sentient human being, has first amendment protections but the second that an organization is created to help facilitate the campaign, that organization can be regulated to hell and back without falling afoul of the 1st Amendment as it is no longer a sentient human being.
The problem with citizens united is that the Federal Government has equated Money with Speech and Organizations with People. Neither of those things are the same thing and should not be regulated as such. We need the amendment to directly affirm that these two notions are incorrect and neither can be used as the basis for governance.
The 1A ensure our freedom from government infringement of our Right to Associate with one another as well. To take action as a group rather than just as individuals. Why should each of us be able to say a thing, but when we speak together we fall afoul of government restrictions?
We can find reasonable regulation in this arena, just as we do with all the Amendments at the friction points between individual liberty and public responsibility, without going so far as to flatly deny the value and legitimacy of a group's united voice.
Nobody's "denying" the value and legitimacy of a group's voice - just pointing out that while groups may be made of people, that doesn't make them people, and thus shouldn't have the same protection as people. And no, this doesn't infringe on the right of association, as none of the rights in the First Amendment are absolute.
Which comes to the biggest problem with your argument - you can't use the Constitution to defend the Constitution. It's a tautological argument for one, and two, the Constitution is ultimately what we say it is. If you feel that saying that organizations not being treated like people is an inappropriate infringement of the right of assembly and association, then make that argument.
Why should each of us be able to say a thing, but when we speak together we fall afoul of government restrictions?
Ostensibly, if you subscribe to a "One Person One Vote" style of democratic principle, essentially what you've done is put your finger on the scale in a manner that other people may not be able to. Thus you've shifted things in your favor in a manner which could be construed as essentially undermining the spirit of a democratic society.
Particularly since in actual practice, it's a much smaller group of folks with a much greater warchest who do this, instead of a bunch of middle class at best forumers.
Nobody's "denying" the value and legitimacy of a group's voice - just pointing out that while groups may be made of people, that doesn't make them people, and thus shouldn't have the same protection as people. And no, this doesn't infringe on the right of association, as none of the rights in the First Amendment are absolute.
Which comes to the biggest problem with your argument - you can't use the Constitution to defend the Constitution. It's a tautological argument for one, and two, the Constitution is ultimately what we say it is. If you feel that saying that organizations not being treated like people is an inappropriate infringement of the right of assembly and association, then make that argument.
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
YOU, a sentient human being, have a right to free speech, an organization does not. You give money to Penny Arcade Forumers for Dems, speech undertaken by that organization does not have 1st Amendment Protections. PAFD is not a sentient human being and can be regulated to hell and back without falling afoul of the 1st Amendment. A candidate, as a sentient human being, has first amendment protections but the second that an organization is created to help facilitate the campaign, that organization can be regulated to hell and back without falling afoul of the 1st Amendment as it is no longer a sentient human being.
The problem with citizens united is that the Federal Government has equated Money with Speech and Organizations with People. Neither of those things are the same thing and should not be regulated as such. We need the amendment to directly affirm that these two notions are incorrect and neither can be used as the basis for governance.
The 1A ensure our freedom from government infringement of our Right to Associate with one another as well. To take action as a group rather than just as individuals. Why should each of us be able to say a thing, but when we speak together we fall afoul of government restrictions?
We can find reasonable regulation in this arena, just as we do with all the Amendments at the friction points between individual liberty and public responsibility, without going so far as to flatly deny the value and legitimacy of a group's united voice.
You can associate with other people all you want but the second you associate with an organization, those interactions can be regulated without violating the 1st Amendment because organizations are not people.
You can speak together as one but when you do so through an organization, that organization's speech is not protected because it is not a person.
A brick is not a building, we don't treat a brick like we do a building.
Keep in mind this isn't proposed legislation. It's an amendment. The proper analysis isn't "will this violate our Constitution as currently written" it's "is this a good change to make to our Constitution".
+19
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Citizens United had the correct decision made based upon centuries of jurisprudence, and corporate personhood extends back to the early 1800s.
Citizens United is also a really shitty decision and highlights and exacerbates the problems inherent with money in our election systems.
This amendment is the sort of thing the courts were suggesting would be an appropriate remedy for the problem, and seem like a really great start!
I do question if and when they could possibly be passed.
YOU, a sentient human being, have a right to free speech, an organization does not. You give money to Penny Arcade Forumers for Dems, speech undertaken by that organization does not have 1st Amendment Protections. PAFD is not a sentient human being and can be regulated to hell and back without falling afoul of the 1st Amendment. A candidate, as a sentient human being, has first amendment protections but the second that an organization is created to help facilitate the campaign, that organization can be regulated to hell and back without falling afoul of the 1st Amendment as it is no longer a sentient human being.
The problem with citizens united is that the Federal Government has equated Money with Speech and Organizations with People. Neither of those things are the same thing and should not be regulated as such. We need the amendment to directly affirm that these two notions are incorrect and neither can be used as the basis for governance.
The 1A ensure our freedom from government infringement of our Right to Associate with one another as well. To take action as a group rather than just as individuals. Why should each of us be able to say a thing, but when we speak together we fall afoul of government restrictions?
We can find reasonable regulation in this arena, just as we do with all the Amendments at the friction points between individual liberty and public responsibility, without going so far as to flatly deny the value and legitimacy of a group's united voice.
Ah so when a corporation makes a donation, we can reliably assume that donation reflects the views of all the members of that corp?
YOU, a sentient human being, have a right to free speech, an organization does not. You give money to Penny Arcade Forumers for Dems, speech undertaken by that organization does not have 1st Amendment Protections. PAFD is not a sentient human being and can be regulated to hell and back without falling afoul of the 1st Amendment. A candidate, as a sentient human being, has first amendment protections but the second that an organization is created to help facilitate the campaign, that organization can be regulated to hell and back without falling afoul of the 1st Amendment as it is no longer a sentient human being.
The problem with citizens united is that the Federal Government has equated Money with Speech and Organizations with People. Neither of those things are the same thing and should not be regulated as such. We need the amendment to directly affirm that these two notions are incorrect and neither can be used as the basis for governance.
The 1A ensure our freedom from government infringement of our Right to Associate with one another as well. To take action as a group rather than just as individuals. Why should each of us be able to say a thing, but when we speak together we fall afoul of government restrictions?
We can find reasonable regulation in this arena, just as we do with all the Amendments at the friction points between individual liberty and public responsibility, without going so far as to flatly deny the value and legitimacy of a group's united voice.
Ah so when a corporation makes a donation, we can reliably assume that donation reflects the views of all the members of that corp?
Do you apply the same scrutiny to union donations?
YOU, a sentient human being, have a right to free speech, an organization does not. You give money to Penny Arcade Forumers for Dems, speech undertaken by that organization does not have 1st Amendment Protections. PAFD is not a sentient human being and can be regulated to hell and back without falling afoul of the 1st Amendment. A candidate, as a sentient human being, has first amendment protections but the second that an organization is created to help facilitate the campaign, that organization can be regulated to hell and back without falling afoul of the 1st Amendment as it is no longer a sentient human being.
The problem with citizens united is that the Federal Government has equated Money with Speech and Organizations with People. Neither of those things are the same thing and should not be regulated as such. We need the amendment to directly affirm that these two notions are incorrect and neither can be used as the basis for governance.
The 1A ensure our freedom from government infringement of our Right to Associate with one another as well. To take action as a group rather than just as individuals. Why should each of us be able to say a thing, but when we speak together we fall afoul of government restrictions?
We can find reasonable regulation in this arena, just as we do with all the Amendments at the friction points between individual liberty and public responsibility, without going so far as to flatly deny the value and legitimacy of a group's united voice.
Ah so when a corporation makes a donation, we can reliably assume that donation reflects the views of all the members of that corp?
Do you apply the same scrutiny to union donations?
No, but then unions are structured differently than corporations (they use a model of democratic governance, for one.)
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
In real terms, no.
But in legal terms, yes since 1818 with Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward... through one hell of a series of graft and grift situations that laid the basis for our modern business environment. The rough, forum level story starts before this, 8 years ealrier, with Fletcher v Peck in which the following happened:
Following the Treaty of Paris ending the American Revolution, Georgia claimed possession of the Yazoo lands, a 54,000 sq mi (140,000 km2) region of the Indian Reserve, west of its own territory. The land later became the states of Alabama and Mississippi.
In 1795, the Georgia legislature divided the area into four tracts. The state then sold the tracts to four separate land development companies for $500,000, about $0.014 per acre, a bargain even at 1790 prices. The Georgia legislature overwhelmingly approved this land grant, known as the Yazoo Land Act of 1795. However, it was later revealed that the Yazoo Land Act had been approved in return for bribes. The voters rejected most of the incumbents in the next election; the new legislature, reacting to the public outcry, repealed the law and voided the transactions made under it.
Robert Fletcher and especially John Peck were speculators in the Yazoo lands. Fletcher bought a tract of land from Peck while the 1795 act was still in force. Fletcher, in 1803, brought a suit against Peck, claiming that Peck had not had clear title to the land when he sold it.
There was collusion between the two. Both would have their land secured if the Supreme Court decided that Native Americans did not hold original title. Fletcher set out to win the case
So short version, two greedy landowners who through various means were speculating about stolen first nation land were mad that they lost money when the people found out and tried to do something about it through legistlation. Soon after the courts unanimously ruled in favor of the speculators as "that the sale was a binding contract, which under Article I, Section 10, Clause I (the Contract Clause) of the Constitution, cannot be invalidated even if it is illegally secured." So both speculators got their land and money.
Functionally this all sounds super shitty, but wait. It gets more bonkers with the later case. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward built off of this situation as Dartmouth, a chartered college (read: corporation of the time), wanted to restore the former deposed college president through ceeding the ownership rights and the placement of the board of trustees to the state of New Hampshire (an action backed by the state legislature to essentially make the school a public institution). The actual board of trustees, who would lose their position in their own company through this, naturally objected.
The SCOTUS ruled in favor of the school, saying their buildings, charter, and and seal were protected under the same individual protections as Fletcher and Peck, stating that corporations as an entity are entitled to property protections in the same way as an individual.
Or, in other terms, corporations are people, fuck your public school idea. These cases do not look great from a modern perspective.
Over the years since, more cases granted additional protections to corporations as an entity, such as:
that one time a crooked corporation took land grants set for individuals instead of their intended purpose and got the same protections in soliciting public wellfare as an individuals (1886)
Or that one time a corporation decided that equal protection of individuals designed to protect slaves during reconstruction (14th amendment) should also apply to corporations because a silver mine wanted to keep land they shouldn't in perpetuity (1888)
or that one time a life insurance company reaaaaaallly didnt want to pay out to a family AND SO took it to the supreme court under the guise of "well the jury that found us full of shit wasnt informed of the 14th amendment so the ruling of the people should be thrown out" even though it didnt actually apply to corporations until later that year when SCOTUS said "sure! why not!" (1906)
or that one time in 1948 we added corporate personhood to the US Code stating "the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;" unless otherwise protected after extentise wartime lobbying
or that one time in 1978 where SCOTUS ruled that state statues limiting corporate "persons" financial contributions to elections were unconstitutional leading to the 1990, 2002, and finally 2010 case of Citizen's United that gets us where we are today.
So the point is, our entire legal history has been ignoring the will of the people for capitalist expansions of corporate power, and Citizen's United is hardly out of character or incorrect based upon this massive pile of crap decisions historically.
The only way to stop it is for federal legistlation, like this amendment idea, and it literally can't come too soon. But without that, there will never be legal precedent to use the judicial branch to reign in corporate personhood or speech. No justice would do so with the amount of stuff propping it up that, if removed, would cause a ton of problems that only the legistlature legally can cause.
YOU, a sentient human being, have a right to free speech, an organization does not. You give money to Penny Arcade Forumers for Dems, speech undertaken by that organization does not have 1st Amendment Protections. PAFD is not a sentient human being and can be regulated to hell and back without falling afoul of the 1st Amendment. A candidate, as a sentient human being, has first amendment protections but the second that an organization is created to help facilitate the campaign, that organization can be regulated to hell and back without falling afoul of the 1st Amendment as it is no longer a sentient human being.
The problem with citizens united is that the Federal Government has equated Money with Speech and Organizations with People. Neither of those things are the same thing and should not be regulated as such. We need the amendment to directly affirm that these two notions are incorrect and neither can be used as the basis for governance.
The 1A ensure our freedom from government infringement of our Right to Associate with one another as well. To take action as a group rather than just as individuals. Why should each of us be able to say a thing, but when we speak together we fall afoul of government restrictions?
We can find reasonable regulation in this arena, just as we do with all the Amendments at the friction points between individual liberty and public responsibility, without going so far as to flatly deny the value and legitimacy of a group's united voice.
Ah so when a corporation makes a donation, we can reliably assume that donation reflects the views of all the members of that corp?
Do you apply the same scrutiny to union donations?
YOU, a sentient human being, have a right to free speech, an organization does not. You give money to Penny Arcade Forumers for Dems, speech undertaken by that organization does not have 1st Amendment Protections. PAFD is not a sentient human being and can be regulated to hell and back without falling afoul of the 1st Amendment. A candidate, as a sentient human being, has first amendment protections but the second that an organization is created to help facilitate the campaign, that organization can be regulated to hell and back without falling afoul of the 1st Amendment as it is no longer a sentient human being.
The problem with citizens united is that the Federal Government has equated Money with Speech and Organizations with People. Neither of those things are the same thing and should not be regulated as such. We need the amendment to directly affirm that these two notions are incorrect and neither can be used as the basis for governance.
The 1A ensure our freedom from government infringement of our Right to Associate with one another as well. To take action as a group rather than just as individuals. Why should each of us be able to say a thing, but when we speak together we fall afoul of government restrictions?
We can find reasonable regulation in this arena, just as we do with all the Amendments at the friction points between individual liberty and public responsibility, without going so far as to flatly deny the value and legitimacy of a group's united voice.
Ah so when a corporation makes a donation, we can reliably assume that donation reflects the views of all the members of that corp?
Do you apply the same scrutiny to union donations?
I'm not really OK with those either.
TBF they're more cordoned off than corporate donations came to be. Like if all corporate PAC money came from the C-suite and other employees donating to a PAC they'd be less of a problem.
YOU, a sentient human being, have a right to free speech, an organization does not. You give money to Penny Arcade Forumers for Dems, speech undertaken by that organization does not have 1st Amendment Protections. PAFD is not a sentient human being and can be regulated to hell and back without falling afoul of the 1st Amendment. A candidate, as a sentient human being, has first amendment protections but the second that an organization is created to help facilitate the campaign, that organization can be regulated to hell and back without falling afoul of the 1st Amendment as it is no longer a sentient human being.
The problem with citizens united is that the Federal Government has equated Money with Speech and Organizations with People. Neither of those things are the same thing and should not be regulated as such. We need the amendment to directly affirm that these two notions are incorrect and neither can be used as the basis for governance.
The 1A ensure our freedom from government infringement of our Right to Associate with one another as well. To take action as a group rather than just as individuals. Why should each of us be able to say a thing, but when we speak together we fall afoul of government restrictions?
We can find reasonable regulation in this arena, just as we do with all the Amendments at the friction points between individual liberty and public responsibility, without going so far as to flatly deny the value and legitimacy of a group's united voice.
Ah so when a corporation makes a donation, we can reliably assume that donation reflects the views of all the members of that corp?
Do you apply the same scrutiny to union donations?
No, but then unions are structured differently than corporations (they use a model of democratic governance, for one.)
This is an important distinction, although there's a (weaker) argument that even union members who disagree cannot remove themselves - and thus their dues funding said donations - without losing their job. Which is a fundamental issue with corporate money.
Then again conservative America has always been fine with tyranny of the majority in every other facet of governance, with the sole glaring exception of when unions do it. So I don't see why there's a reason to wring hands over the ever-shrinking population of dues-required union members who strongly disagree with how their union represents them.
Corporate donations are not analogous to democratic forms of government in the same way. The most comparable structure of governance to corporate influence in politics is feudalism, where the ruling class extracts capital from workers without them having any say (the risk of speaking out is losing your livelihood) and uses that capital to exercise political power.
YOU, a sentient human being, have a right to free speech, an organization does not. You give money to Penny Arcade Forumers for Dems, speech undertaken by that organization does not have 1st Amendment Protections. PAFD is not a sentient human being and can be regulated to hell and back without falling afoul of the 1st Amendment. A candidate, as a sentient human being, has first amendment protections but the second that an organization is created to help facilitate the campaign, that organization can be regulated to hell and back without falling afoul of the 1st Amendment as it is no longer a sentient human being.
The problem with citizens united is that the Federal Government has equated Money with Speech and Organizations with People. Neither of those things are the same thing and should not be regulated as such. We need the amendment to directly affirm that these two notions are incorrect and neither can be used as the basis for governance.
The 1A ensure our freedom from government infringement of our Right to Associate with one another as well. To take action as a group rather than just as individuals. Why should each of us be able to say a thing, but when we speak together we fall afoul of government restrictions?
We can find reasonable regulation in this arena, just as we do with all the Amendments at the friction points between individual liberty and public responsibility, without going so far as to flatly deny the value and legitimacy of a group's united voice.
Ah so when a corporation makes a donation, we can reliably assume that donation reflects the views of all the members of that corp?
Do you apply the same scrutiny to union donations?
No, but then unions are structured differently than corporations (they use a model of democratic governance, for one.)
This is an important distinction, although there's a (weaker) argument that even union members who disagree cannot remove themselves - and thus their dues funding said donations - without losing their job. Which is a fundamental issue with corporate money.
Then again conservative America has always been fine with tyranny of the majority in every other facet of governance, with the sole glaring exception of when unions do it. So I don't see why there's a reason to wring hands over the ever-shrinking population of dues-required union members who strongly disagree with how their union represents them.
Corporate donations are not analogous to democratic forms of government in the same way. The most comparable structure of governance to corporate influence in politics is feudalism, where the ruling class extracts capital from workers without them having any say (the risk of speaking out is losing your livelihood) and uses that capital to exercise political power.
Union dues, by law, cannot be used to pay for political contributions, iirc. The books have to be kept separate (and despite this there's a SCOTUS case trying to destroy them with that as an excuse, but I digress), with employees making opt-in contributions for lobbying, etc.
Posts
The 1A ensure our freedom from government infringement of our Right to Associate with one another as well. To take action as a group rather than just as individuals. Why should each of us be able to say a thing, but when we speak together we fall afoul of government restrictions?
We can find reasonable regulation in this arena, just as we do with all the Amendments at the friction points between individual liberty and public responsibility, without going so far as to flatly deny the value and legitimacy of a group's united voice.
Which comes to the biggest problem with your argument - you can't use the Constitution to defend the Constitution. It's a tautological argument for one, and two, the Constitution is ultimately what we say it is. If you feel that saying that organizations not being treated like people is an inappropriate infringement of the right of assembly and association, then make that argument.
Ostensibly, if you subscribe to a "One Person One Vote" style of democratic principle, essentially what you've done is put your finger on the scale in a manner that other people may not be able to. Thus you've shifted things in your favor in a manner which could be construed as essentially undermining the spirit of a democratic society.
Particularly since in actual practice, it's a much smaller group of folks with a much greater warchest who do this, instead of a bunch of middle class at best forumers.
You can associate with other people all you want but the second you associate with an organization, those interactions can be regulated without violating the 1st Amendment because organizations are not people.
You can speak together as one but when you do so through an organization, that organization's speech is not protected because it is not a person.
A brick is not a building, we don't treat a brick like we do a building.
Ah so when a corporation makes a donation, we can reliably assume that donation reflects the views of all the members of that corp?
Do you apply the same scrutiny to union donations?
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
No, but then unions are structured differently than corporations (they use a model of democratic governance, for one.)
But in legal terms, yes since 1818 with Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward... through one hell of a series of graft and grift situations that laid the basis for our modern business environment. The rough, forum level story starts before this, 8 years ealrier, with Fletcher v Peck in which the following happened:
So short version, two greedy landowners who through various means were speculating about stolen first nation land were mad that they lost money when the people found out and tried to do something about it through legistlation. Soon after the courts unanimously ruled in favor of the speculators as "that the sale was a binding contract, which under Article I, Section 10, Clause I (the Contract Clause) of the Constitution, cannot be invalidated even if it is illegally secured." So both speculators got their land and money.
Functionally this all sounds super shitty, but wait. It gets more bonkers with the later case. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward built off of this situation as Dartmouth, a chartered college (read: corporation of the time), wanted to restore the former deposed college president through ceeding the ownership rights and the placement of the board of trustees to the state of New Hampshire (an action backed by the state legislature to essentially make the school a public institution). The actual board of trustees, who would lose their position in their own company through this, naturally objected.
The SCOTUS ruled in favor of the school, saying their buildings, charter, and and seal were protected under the same individual protections as Fletcher and Peck, stating that corporations as an entity are entitled to property protections in the same way as an individual.
Or, in other terms, corporations are people, fuck your public school idea. These cases do not look great from a modern perspective.
Over the years since, more cases granted additional protections to corporations as an entity, such as:
So the point is, our entire legal history has been ignoring the will of the people for capitalist expansions of corporate power, and Citizen's United is hardly out of character or incorrect based upon this massive pile of crap decisions historically.
The only way to stop it is for federal legistlation, like this amendment idea, and it literally can't come too soon. But without that, there will never be legal precedent to use the judicial branch to reign in corporate personhood or speech. No justice would do so with the amount of stuff propping it up that, if removed, would cause a ton of problems that only the legistlature legally can cause.
I'm not really OK with those either.
TBF they're more cordoned off than corporate donations came to be. Like if all corporate PAC money came from the C-suite and other employees donating to a PAC they'd be less of a problem.
This is an important distinction, although there's a (weaker) argument that even union members who disagree cannot remove themselves - and thus their dues funding said donations - without losing their job. Which is a fundamental issue with corporate money.
Then again conservative America has always been fine with tyranny of the majority in every other facet of governance, with the sole glaring exception of when unions do it. So I don't see why there's a reason to wring hands over the ever-shrinking population of dues-required union members who strongly disagree with how their union represents them.
Corporate donations are not analogous to democratic forms of government in the same way. The most comparable structure of governance to corporate influence in politics is feudalism, where the ruling class extracts capital from workers without them having any say (the risk of speaking out is losing your livelihood) and uses that capital to exercise political power.
Union dues, by law, cannot be used to pay for political contributions, iirc. The books have to be kept separate (and despite this there's a SCOTUS case trying to destroy them with that as an excuse, but I digress), with employees making opt-in contributions for lobbying, etc.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy