Jon Stewart proves corporations aren't people

[Write4U]

Agreed. As is spending your money on billboards and political contributions. Parades, demonstrations and political donations are not the SAME as speech, but to the extent they are used to enable free speech, they are protected.

I think a pararde is a clear and unambiguous form of speech. The message is clearly delivered in public. OTOH, can drive a armored truck with a million dollars inside and the only message is that I am rich. I am not exercising speech of any kind. I am transporting money.

Of course. And they are often funded by someone with enough money to want to get a message out. The Charlotte gay pride parade, for example, is funded by Bank of America.

"Implied" - in some cases. "Obligatory" - disagree. When I contribute to a cause, I have no expectation that the cause will then do what I want.

If you contribute large sums of money to a cause you certainly expect them to do want you are financing. This is where the analogy with free speech fails.

Should Bank of America be banned from supporting the gay pride parade in Charlotte? Should a religious group be banned from buying billboards to push their anti-abortion views? Should farmers be banned from buying ads to press for more farm support? Should individuals be banned from contibuting to PAC's?

Yes, the Bank itself cannot support a political cause. This is why it has to use a PAC. And we return to a previous post,

The Law of Impersonal Transactions
Protecting third parties produces a legal commodity which is easy to trade impersonally, improving the allocation and specialization of resources.
Historical delay in generalizing this legal commoditization paradigm is attributed to path dependency—the law first developed for personal trade—and an unbalance in vested interests, as luddite legal professionals face weak public bureaucracies.
http://www.econ.upf.edu/docs/papers/downloads/1187.pdf

 

[Write4U]

You accidentally cleared-up your own attempt to create a contradiction. Money (a thing) was never claimed to be speech (an action) itself, only a means to buy speech (an action). Hence, "monetary expenditures" (spending money) = speech

But it is afforded special priviliges over other methods employed in the exercise of Free Speech

But the Supreme Court has afforded to money a special protection, a protection reserved for no other means of amplification. Money alone, according to the Court, is an amplification of speech that cannot be regulated.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-edmund-moody/money-is-speech-or-the-ra_b_1552808.html

 

[billvon]

I think a pararde is a clear and unambiguous form of speech. The message is clearly delivered in public.

So is a billboard. So is a TV ad campaign. So is a thousand flyers given away by supporters. So is a PAC doing commercials.

OTOH, can drive a armored truck with a million dollars inside and the only message is that I am rich. I am not exercising speech of any kind. I am transporting money.

And if I transport a parade in a bus, I am not making a statement either; I am only sending the message "I have a parade." Not sure what either statement has to do with the topic.

If you contribute large sums of money to a cause you certainly expect them to do want you are financing.

And if you have large billboard buy you can certainly expect it to affect people, and you would hope that your money was not wasted and that they support your cause.

And if you fund a parade down Main Street you can certainly expect it to affect people, and you would hope that your money was not wasted and that they support your cause.

Yes, the Bank itself cannot support a political cause.

In this case it does via its money (the parade.)

 

[Russ_Watters]

But it is afforded special priviliges over other methods employed in the exercise of Free Speech

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-edmund-moody/money-is-speech-or-the-ra_b_1552808.html

I didn't get past "a flower equals manure". I'll not read such...manure.

In any case, I don't know how you would define such methods or what they are, but I do know that the USSC had only one to rule on in the case.

 

[iceaura]

The concept of a juridicial 'person' isn't an evil conspiracy and it isn't a joke, it's just elementary law school stuff.

The mistaking of a juridicial "person" for a person automatically granted rights by the US Constitution is a joke, however.

And the granting of First Amendment protections to the transfer of money is an evil conspiracy.

Right. But spending money to promote your message is protected.

Only if you are a person. If you are a corporation, all your spending of money for any reason can be curbed by the State at whim, unless such curbs in fact prevent persons from exercising their Constitutional rights. At least, that's how it was for the first couple hundred years in this country.

Should Bank of America be banned from supporting the gay pride parade in Charlotte? Should a religious group be banned from buying billboards to push their anti-abortion views? Should farmers be banned from buying ads to press for more farm support? Should individuals be banned from contibuting to PAC's?

No. But farmers should be banned from giving large sums of money to police officers in control of their use of the public roads for heavy equipment and cargo. The Bank of America should be banned from donating large sums of money to the retirement savings or office furnishings of bank regulators. And corporations should be banned from contributing large sums of money to politicians or their campaigns. That's bribery. Bribery is criminal, not informative.

Money is amplification, not speech. We routinely regulate, even ban, amplification.

 

[billvon]

No. But farmers should be banned from giving large sums of money to police officers . . .

Disagree.

. . . in control of their use of the public roads for heavy equipment and cargo.

Once you add that caveat - to deny others free use of roads - then yes, it should be banned. Note that giving money to police should not be banned, bribing them to violate traffic rules should be.

And corporations should be banned from contributing large sums of money to politicians or their campaigns. That's bribery. Bribery is criminal, not informative.

Have you contributed to any campaigns? Does that count as bribery?

Money is amplification, not speech. We routinely regulate, even ban, amplification.

Money is not amplification. Money is money. It's a tool that can be used to do many things, both good and bad.

 

[Write4U]

I didn't get past "a flower equals manure". I'll not read such...manure.

In any case, I don't know how you would define such methods or what they are, but I do know that the USSC had only one to rule on in the case.

I thought it was a valid comparison to "free speech equals money". I just don't buy..... it.

Of course a flower does not equal manure, but a flower requires soil, water and fertilizer, none of which are a flower in and of themselves, but permit the flower to bloom (amplify its growth) if the mixture is just right. But an unbalanced mixture (too much fertilizer) will favor one species of another and discourages competition.

So it is with money. Free speech needs a premise, support and amplification (MONEY), none of which are free speech in and of temselves, but permit free speech to be heard. However, too much money (amplification) will drown out all other free speech and creates an unbalanced audition which disallows competition.

While this may be lawful it is not ethical and offers an unfair advantage to the "free speech with the deepest pockets". IMO, not good in a democracy.

 

[iceaura]

Once you add that caveat - to deny others free use of roads - then yes, it should be banned.

No mindreading allowed. If you allow farmers to give big money to police officers, you will be allowing bribery.

Note that giving money to police should not be banned, bribing them to violate traffic rules should be.

There is no difference, in a world without mindreaders.

Likewise corporations giving money to politicians and their campaigns and their efforts: It's a built in conflict of interest - in a corporation's case, there isn't even a mind to read.

Have you contributed to any campaigns?

Yes

Does that count as bribery?

Past a certain amount, yes - if it is, say, enough to sway the politician toward favoring me over other citizens as a source of cash. That's why it's not legal to give more than so much, an amount settled on by - in theory - experienced and prudent representatives of the public good.

In the case of a corporation, since it is not a person and has no standing as a citizen or rights as a person or politics as a living entity, no mind with which to favor political stances, and no role in the world other than commercial exchange, any amount of money directed toward a politician would be commercial exchange, i.e. bribery - there's no other available category.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Only if you are a person. If you are a corporation, all your spending of money for any reason can be curbed by the State at whim, unless such curbs in fact prevent persons from exercising their Constitutional rights.

Yeah, that's exactly what the USSC ruled!

 

[Russ_Watters]

I thought it was a valid comparison to "free speech equals money".

Again: that's a purposeful (and futile) attempt to misconstrue the issue. I'll let you go back and reread my last post rather than explaining again what is wrong with that wording.

However, too much money (amplification) will drown out all other free speech and creates an unbalanced audition which disallows competition.

Really? Should we also ban signs over a certain size, soapboxes, megaphones, people who are too loud, people who are too eloquent, etc? I thought you said that money was alone in creating unfair advantages in expressing speech?

Rather than wait for the wrong answer: No. There are no such limits on one's ability to speak freely. That would be unConstitutional.

 

[Write4U]

Again: that's a purposeful (and futile) attempt to misconstrue the issue. I'll let you go back and reread my last post rather than explaining again what is wrong with that wording.

Really? Should we also ban signs over a certain size, soapboxes, megaphones, people who are too loud, people who are too eloquent, etc? I thought you said that money was alone in creating unfair advantages in expressing speech?

We do, that's the point and you would have learned that if you had continued to read past "a flower is manure".

Rather than wait for the wrong answer: No. There are no such limits on one's ability to speak freely. That would be unConstitutional.

But there are such amplification limits, such as size and height of signs in public. And exceeding certain decibels on public streets. And that is not unconstitutional because of a priori other compelling public concerns.

 

[Russ_Watters]

But there are such amplification limits, such as size and height of signs in public. And exceeding certain decibels on public streets. And that is not unconstitutional because of a priori other compelling public concerns.

No, that's public nuisance type restrictions. That's not what you said. You said we should limit free speech for people who are too good at it.

 

[billvon]

No mindreading allowed.

Exactly. If you do not commit a crime you are allowed to do it. If you do commit a crime (as determined by laws and, later, a jury) then you are not allowed to do it. No mindreading required.

Let's say you are a (relatively) wealthy guy living in a crime-ridden area. The police are slowly starting to turn things around in your home neighborhood. Then there is a budget crisis and the mayor says "we have to cut police by 60%; we just don't have the money to employ them any more." If that wealthy guy wants to contribute money to the town government to prevent police layoffs and protect his own neighborhood - why the heck would you consider him a criminal?

There is no difference, in a world without mindreaders.

You may feel that the only way to determine if a crime has been committed is via mindreaders - but I find that courts work quite well.

Yes Past a certain amount, yes In the case of a corporation, since it is not a person and has no standing as a citizen or rights as a person or politics as a living entity, no mind with which to favor political stances, and no role in the world other than commercial exchange, any amount of money directed toward a politician would be commercial exchange, i.e. bribery - there's no other available category.

I don't understand why your interests are "bribable" (i.e. you are allowed to contribute money) but a corporation's interests are not. If you, for example, are a petty thief, and you contribute to "soft-on-crime" politicians, why should your contribution be allowed while an organization like the Nature Conservancy, trying to preserve natural habitats, is banned from doing so? Why allow criminals to influence public policy but not not-for-profit environmental organizations?

In general I oppose bans on what people can use their money to say or support. There have to be a very good reason to ban such freedoms since they are protected under the First Amendment.

 

[Write4U]

No, that's public nuisance type restrictions. That's not what you said. You said we should limit free speech for people who are too good at it.

No, I never said that. The quote I used (with link) made the assertion that

But the Supreme Court has afforded to money a special protection, a protection reserved for no other means of amplification. Money alone, according to the Court, is an amplification of speech that cannot be regulated. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...b_1552808.html

Thus the Court has declared that there are amplifications of speech which are regulated, but money alone is exempt from any regulation.

 

[Write4U]

billvon;
In general I oppose bans on what people can use their money to say or support. There have to be a very good reason to ban such freedoms since they are protected under the First Amendment.

The question is if the donor of extraordinary amounts should remain anonymous or should be required to disclose the principal source. What if China could anonymously donate 100billion dollars to elect "their guy"?

It is not just the amount but also the fact that it is an anonymous donation which deprives the public from making "informed" decisions.

 

[billvon]

The question is if the donor of extraordinary amounts should remain anonymous or should be required to disclose the principal source. What if China could anonymously donate 100billion dollars to elect "their guy"? It is not just the amount but also the fact that it is an anonymous donation which deprives the public from making "informed" decisions.

I agree that such contributors should not be anonymous. If they are running for public office, then donations should also be made public.

 

[Russ_Watters]

No, I never said that. The quote I used (with link) made the assertion that...

Wrong quote. You said: "But it is afforded special priviliges over other methods employed in the exercise of Free Speech"

In other words, the money gives them more/better powers of free speech than people without money have. Ergo: they are too good at it.

Thus the Court has declared that there are amplifications of speech which are regulated, but money alone is exempt from any regulation.

False. When you say it and when a Huffpost nutjob says it, it is false either way.

 

[Write4U]

I agree that such contributors should not be anonymous. If they are running for public office, then donations should also be made public.

IMO, the term "free speech" is an implied right of the individual human mind, an ability not comparable to the hive-mind of an impersonal for-profit corporation with an obligation to their share-holders. Only Money then becomes speech and all other forms of speech will be drowned out by the size of the amplifier (personal power in a quid pro quo transaction) in the "representation" of Business.

Philosophically I am opposed to entrusting public ethics to entities who's purpose is to exploit resources for financial advantage, not social balance and justice.

 

[Russ_Watters]

IMO, the term "free speech" is an implied right of the individual human mind, an ability not comparable to the hive-mind of an impersonal for-profit corporation with an obligation to their share-holders. Only Money then becomes speech and all other forms of speech will be drowned out by the size of the amplifier (personal power in a quid pro quo transaction) in the "representation" of Business.

Philosophically I am opposed to entrusting public ethics to entities who's purpose is to exploit resources for financial advantage, not social balance and justice.

Er, none of that applies here: the corporations we are talking about are not for profit. They don't have shareholders!

 

[Write4U]

Er, none of that applies here: the corporations we are talking about are not for profit. They don't have shareholders!

Well yes, the curious change in the language of the law for non-profits from "exclusively" to "primarily" allowed for the practice of unlimited funds from anonymous Donors to effectively influence elections. I believe this error is being corrected.

The point is that anonymous corporate donors of very large sums of money have an inherent advantage over private individual donors. A few zeros is powerful incentive even as it only can count for 49% of the non-profit expenditures.