Support Senator Bernie Sanders Constitutional Amendment to prohibit corporations from political spending

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I do not see that anyone here has suggested that corporations do not have a voice or cannot make that voice heard, even through lobbyists or by whatever means they choose EXCEPT donating MONEY to politicians. How does anyone confuse the donation of MONEY with "speech"? How does it prevent a corporation from "speaking" or even taking out full page ads, TV commericals or radio commericals to promote their point of view?

Now, if the politicians have no NEED for this cash because campaigning is limited to 30 days and there are no TV ads, radio ads and they get their campaign fund is ONLY from the collective pot (which corporations can also give money to) then why would they NEED cash and why would corporations NEED to give it to them?

And YES I understand that this would eliminate the ability of th NRA to donate money. Good. Keep it for litigation to restore our rights such as McDonald and Heller.

[mr and mrs 187]

So many are willing to stifle free speech. Must feel great to shut down voices one by one. I do hope all know that when you shut down speech you don't agree with that they will come after your voice to silence.

since when does a corporation have a voice? PR dept, yes. political agenda, yes? people with individual voices, yes.

painting this as a free speech issue is a cop-out, a distraction tactic, and the go-to rhetoric of those who want to preserve the status quo.

the current system of electing public officials is embarrassingly broken/corrupt.

the only voices that are silenced are those who do not have the money to buy a megaphone to make themselves heard over the blare corporate interests.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You all do realize that the first ten amendments can not be amended by Congress, that it could only happen by a Constitutional convention from among the states, proposing such a change, and ratifying it?

The Saunders amendment would require repealing portions of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Haha, so donating money is free speech...I guess when the cop pulls me over and I hand him a 100 dollar bill I should not expect to be in the back of the squad car.

Better yet, when I am arrested I'll sue for a violation of my first amendment rights.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Haha, so donating money is free speech...I guess when the cop pulls me over and I hand him a 100 dollar bill I should not expect to be in the back of the squad car.

Better yet, when I am arrested I'll sue for a violation of my first amendment rights.

You can't just bribe him outright, you have to offer a donation to the Police Activities League.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I do not see that anyone here has suggested that corporations do not have a voice or cannot make that voice heard, even through lobbyists or by whatever means they choose EXCEPT donating MONEY to politicians. How does anyone confuse the donation of MONEY with "speech"? How does it prevent a corporation from "speaking" or even taking out full page ads, TV commericals or radio commericals to promote their point of view?

Now, if the politicians have no NEED for this cash because campaigning is limited to 30 days and there are no TV ads, radio ads and they get their campaign fund is ONLY from the collective pot (which corporations can also give money to) then why would they NEED cash and why would corporations NEED to give it to them?

And YES I understand that this would eliminate the ability of th NRA to donate money. Good. Keep it for litigation to restore our rights such as McDonald and Heller.

I like the 30 day rule. In fact why not simply create a package that is accessible to all Americans. In it could be the candidates voting record for the past 15 years or sim. along with a section that allows the candidate to provide their public stance on items of concern. That information along with debates should provide voters with the information necessary to make informed decisions and would also help to cut out all of the misinformation that gets spewed out in attack ads.

[SMR 368]

A corporation is not a person. But it is people.

As an individual, I have the right to express an opinion on politics or whatever other subject as guaranteed by the first amendment. If I have some money, I have the right to buy space or time in some sort of media to make that opinion more widely heard (also guaranteed by the first amendment provided someone is willing to sell me the media). If I am a multi-billionaire, I can buy a lot of space and time, if I so chose.

If some of my friends and I get together and want to express a mutual opinion, that would also be our right. If we wanted to join our funds and buy some space or time to express that opinion, it couldn't reasonably inhibited. Further, whether we stand to benefit from the spreading and adoption of our opinion is mostly irrelevant. We are allowed to do it anyways.

A corporation is charged with taking actions that will lead to the largest growth in shareholder value. That is the expectation that shareholders inherently have when they buy stock in a company. Given that any of those shareholders, individually or as a group, has the right to express opinions and to buy media for the purpose of spreading that opinion, it's unreasonable to suggest that their surrogates (the executives or other employees of the company), to whom the shareholders money has been entrusted, cannot act in the interest of the shareholders by expressing opinions, political or otherwise, and using shareholder money for the purpose of buying media to spread that opinion. Once we acknowledge that a company, as an entity that represents citizens who have certain rights, is allowed to express opinions, it is a small step to allow that company to fund the opinion expressing endeavors of other organizations with whom the opinions of the company are aligned.

Hence, I see no reason that a company and an individual should be constitutionally distinguished in this way with regards to rights. Bernie Sanders' amendment is dangerous as it lays a framework to disallow the ability of citizens to band together for political purposes. A company is people.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So many are willing to stifle free speech.

Money isn't free speech. Our Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves over that one - that our highest court in the land made it possible to buy elections.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Money isn't free speech. Our Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves over that one - that our highest court in the land made it possible to buy elections.

What's the difference between a corporation doing it and a union doing it?

I'm betting you're not against unions running campaign ads and throwing dollars at Washington.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Money isn't free speech.

Of course it is. Money talks.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What's the difference between a corporation doing it and a union doing it?

I'm betting you're not against unions running campaign ads and throwing dollars at Washington.

You just lost the bet. Money, regardless of who or where it comes from is NOT free speech....period. Next.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Money isn't free speech. Our Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves over that one - that our highest court in the land made it possible to buy elections.

Evidently, more learned folks feel otherwise...

There is simply no support for the view that the First Amendment, as originally understood, would permit the suppression of political speech by media corporations. The Framers may not have anticipated modern business and media corporations.[...] Yet television networks and major newspapers owned by media corporations have become the most important means of mass communication in modern times. The First Amendment was certainly not understood to condone the suppression of political speech in society’s most salient media. It was understood as a response to the repression of speech and the press that had existed in England and the heavy taxes on the press that were imposed in the colonies.[...] The great debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists over our founding document were published and expressed in the most important means of mass communication of that era—newspapers owned by individuals.[...] At the founding, speech was open, comprehensive, and vital to society’s definition of itself; there were no limits on the sources of speech and knowledge.[...] (“Any number of people could join in such proliferating polemics, and rebuttals could come from all sides”);[...] (“t is not surprising that the intellectual sources of [the Americans’] Revolutionary thought were profuse and various”). The Framers may have been unaware of certain types of speakers or forms of communication, but that does not mean that those speakers and media are entitled to less First Amendment protection than those types of speakers and media that provided the means of communicating political ideas when the Bill of Rights was adopted.

and

When Congress finds that a problem exists, we must give that finding due deference; but Congress may not choose an unconstitutional remedy. If elected officials succumb to improper influences from independent expenditures; if they surrender their best judgment; and if they put expediency before principle, then surely there is cause for concern. We must give weight to attempts by Congress to seek to dispel either the appearance or the reality of these influences. The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment ; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical preelection period is not a permissible remedy. Here Congress has created categorical bans on speech that are asymmetrical to preventing quid pro quo corruption.

and

Corporations, like individuals, do not have monolithic views. On certain topics corporations may possess valuable expertise, leaving them the best equipped to point out errors or fallacies in speech of all sorts, including the speech of candidates and elected officials.

Rapid changes in technology—and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression—counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers...The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The first theory appeared in a 1976 decision, Buckley v. Valeo, which invalidated some campaign-finance reforms that came out of Watergate. The Court concluded that most limits on campaign expenditures, and some limits on donations, are unconstitutional because money is itself speech and the "quantity of expression"—the amounts of money—can't be limited.

But in subsequent cases, the conservative justices who had emphatically embraced the money-is-speech principle didn't apply it to money solicited by speakers of ordinary means. For example, the court limited the First Amendment rights of Hare Krishna leafleters soliciting donations in airports to support their own leafleting. The leafleting drew no money-is-speech analysis. To the contrary, the conservative justices, led by Chief Justice Rehnquist, found that by asking for money for leafleting—their form of speech—the Hare Krishnas were being "disruptive" and posing an "inconvenience" to others. In other words, in the court's view, some people's money is speech; others' money is annoying. And the conservative justices have raised no objection to other limits on the quantity of speech, such as limits on the number of picketers.

The money-is-speech theory turns out to be a rhetorical device used exclusively to provide First Amendment protection for all money that wealthy people and businesses want to give to, or to spend, on campaigns. It also doesn't make sense under long established free-speech law. Spending or donating money to support or facilitate speech is expressive and deserves some protection. But money simply doesn't make it into the category of things that are and embody speech, such as books, films, or blogs. Traditional speech-law analysis would separate the speech from the conduct (or "nonspeech") elements of campaign spending and donation and allow considerable leeway to regulate the latter. Even as to "pure" speech, "compelling" government interests are overriding. And spending and donating money seem, among the traditional speech-law categories, a "manner" of speaking that the court has said usually can be "reasonably regulated."

http://www.slate.com...ent_people.html

David Kairys, a law professor at Temple University and a leading civil rights lawyer, is the author of Philadelphia Freedom, Memoir of a Civil Rights Lawyer.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

David Kairys, a law professor at Temple University and a leading civil rights lawyer, is the author of Philadelphia Freedom, Memoir of a Civil Rights Lawyer.

Evidently, also a fan of Elton John