In Citizens United, there’s a long back and forth between Scalia (in concurrence) and Stevens (in dissent) over the founding father’s hostility or lack of hostility to corporate forms. It includes what looks to me a Scalia sideswipe at Thomas Jefferson (“Modern corporations do not have such privileges, and would probably have been favored by most of our enterprising Founders—excluding, perhaps, Thomas Jefferson and others favoring perpetuation of an agrarian society. Moreover, if the Founders’ specific intent with respect.”) There’s way too much in these opinions for me to absorb on a regular work day…
Yep. What would the founding fathers have thought about blogs? Too much for even an irregular work day.
An interesting tidbit…in an argument last term – I cannot remember which but will post when I remember- Sotomayor dropped a bomb calling into question the Court’s decision of Santa Clara County v Pacific RR: something I think might be a good idea in certain respects.
Update – quick google search gave me this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125314088285517643.html
I don’t like the opinion (I agree with the dissent) but think of the millions that are about to be poured into the flagging economy.
Campaign contribution and spending limits/prohibitions don’t work anyway, they just add to the corruption and disillusionment by encouraging parties, candidates, and interest groups to create phony organizations to launder big money through.
It is not as if corporations have had any trouble influencing elections before this decision.
Public disclosure and transparency are much better than limits because big money from a single source or group should be a political issue for candidates and parties to address and the voters to consider.Maybe voters want a corporate stooge and need to know that a candidate is bought.
I think Scalia is wrong about the Founders. Even the Hamilton wing knew that the large British companies had been corrupt tools of the state who had so much influence that they had been given monopolies for colonial trade. The Revolution was at much against state-sponsored corporate corruption as against anything else. Whose tea was it, after all?
And Jefferson did not want to prevent corporations and stay an agrarian society, he just believed that self-sufficient farmers and tradesmen made better citizens because they were freer from corruption and coercion by corporate and financial interests.
I never accepted Santa Clara as four-square authority extending substantive D/P to corporations, subsequent assumptions notwithstanding. I’d like for J. Sotomayor to find a good case for addressing that exact point. Might be interesting.
Well said, Researcher. The illegal and off-balance sheet corporate and government crimes ( Social Security, CIA, federal contractors) are making our country corrupt & bankrupt. We are fast becoming a narco-state. Black market ops account for 10% of global production and we have marginal legal & moral accountability here.
It’s good to see Stevens trying to divine Madison’s et al.’s original intent. We can only hope the effort will continue.
On the mark, Researcher. Pay throughs and 527s circumvented the law.
By chance I know exactly what a corporate court will do for the citizens of this counrty. I’d like to say noything but that’s not it. No it’s not that they will exclude anyone but rather we will all be used to promote the well being of the corporation regrardless. The power of the court will extent to your personal life. If the corporation feels threatened by some claims against it. Good bye to your social security because your work record will be changed. Regardless you didn’t pay enough to recieve any benefits. Your condition will not be applicable for any medical aid your records are in that place where things are lost forever. [Judges Quote].
Even if you feel able to gain an education to better your life, don’t try to get a educational grant cause your Ameican citizenship no longer exist. Bang your flaged. The owned court of corporate law-less-ness along with judges and attorneys will finally run everything and everyone will get a taste of the B.S. fed my family for years now. If your lucky you’ll gather the court documents proving the corporate corruption in the court which ruined your family’s life. But don’t expect anyone in the corporate court to care. The best you might do is post and bitch about it but no much in the way of law.
You’ll never know how it feels to be singled out by a corporate owned court till it happens to you. So get some.
I’m not asking this question to start a firestorm or incur the rath of any posters on this site, but I really don’t see the difference between labor unions pouring millions into a campaign to try to influence the government to pass laws in their behalf and a corporation pouring millions into the same race to try to influence the government to pass laws in their behalf. You can add any number of groups to that list; PACs, DNC, RNC, Acorn. Whats the difference where the money comes from? If it’s right it’s right if it’s wrong it’s wrong.
What is the difference?
I’m a major corporation and you have a lawsuit against me. I want your land,home and your life along with anything you claim is due to you. Hell I want you dead. Although I’ve allowed a payment to the court action on your behalf. I’ve just given the judge over your matters $ 100,000,000 to dismiss your claim for his up coming campaign. i’m hiding it by calling it PAC,DNC,RNC.ETC. And moving your awards from one judge to another to prevent you from ever getting any of it. At any rate the diffrence of where the money came from could be the death of folks the money belong to. ie. your lawsuit.
Now what was the firestorm thing. Now the corporations will just keep paying for what they want like a legal lotto. So I guess the right or wrong is murky at best. Before the court is the corporate motion $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for whatever. Wherefore the court should $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ deny the motion. Not all money is good money. The laws were being changed to fit the crime in an attempt to make it legal regarding our sh1t. It failed. This isn’t about us. But what happen caused a lot of changes in how the legal lotto of corporate court corruption is handled. Whats sad is it was just the start.
I realize my shortcomings regarding this stance but I have a philosophical issue with corporations(broad sense) being full fledged persons which is the obvious core issue in this case. The lawyers here have explored this in detail in con law and subsequently but even apropos ‘Itchy scalp’ why is an aggregate of people a person? Is a mob a person if it has a charter? God forbid one should look in Natural Law for such a source as a corporate body is not natural. It is a derived legal entity. Do corporations or unions go to heaven or Hell when dead? And does a corporation have a moral core, a soul? Do we have to make corporations full people to allow them access to the courts? The door is closed on them being persons but one can hope. As an aside, abrogating the free speech rights of a corporation does not abrogate the rights of those who are members such as employees for a company, members for a union or a PAC. The reason for existence of the RNC/DNC or a PAC is for political action and donations from them (if siphons only for real people) are not different from the individuals. Donations from a for profit entity are in a sense different and are not aggregates of the free speech rights of the members.
NL (not a Natural Law advocate)
By the way should not Natural Law proponents believe in evolution and speciation?
Thaks for responding nature lover, I was afraid I was going to have to try to figure out what Robert said…
So a CO OP, club, credit union, mutual company, partnership, can give millions because they are owned by individuals with souls? It appears to me that the money is the corruptor, not who gave it. What’s the old saying? Now that we have established what you are, all we are negotiating is the price?
HS
No I am just maintaining that the RNC DNC or a PAC is a pass through. A union, a true corporation is something different. I do not believe that corporations of most other types are persons. It seems to me that they are set up in such a way to avoid some of the rights and responsibilities of a real person. They pay taxes but as corporations with other rules than you or I. They cannot vote as an entity and cannot be punished in many ways. Could a chemical company be jailed and lose some of its natural lifespan as a result of a decision that killed someone? Yes it can be fined, the responsible officers can be tried but that is not the same.
NL
NL – I see your point about the “real person.” I guess I’m having trouble with the notion that some money thrown at politicians is good money and some is bad money, based on who threw it.
Headscratching, If a corporation was to give as much as it wants legally so what. The real question is where is the money coming from? Good money would be from corporate profit and that cost. It also becomes a known financal supporter. Now we both know how corporations are. Their greedy. another thing once they pick someone to support. Bam instant enimeies.It’s all on them.
Bad money is a corporation gives money to the court and state to alter the history of a negligent crime causing death by the corporation. Least we forget,and all it would involve using fraudulent claims and such. Like the thousands prescribed medication for an event having nothing to do with them. ie Over dose’s, medical bill of rights should help hide that one. If the state feels sucessful the patteren is set. The state will do every citizen in knowing the money stolen will become part of the next elections support funds.
Oh ya! What politician wouldn’t take the money regardless it was honestly obtained or some form of blood money? Go ahead and name em.
What about a 50% tax on all political ad purchases by corporations and labor unions, earmarked for healthcare?
I don’t think that is a sideswipe. My guess is that Scalia shares the Jeffersonian view.
Enzie, that would be a wonderful idea which is exactly why it won;t make it to becoming a bill, much less in a bill getting out of committee.
While we’re taxing attempts to buy the government, why not add that same 50% tax to any out of district group or entity that tries to influence a local election? My thought is to make the voice of that district heard, not the voice of whoever pours the most money into races not in the district they reside in. That would leave politicians beholden to their local district and not to someone buying the election nationwide that would expect a payback later.