Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United v. FEC — Vermont Speaks Loudly
Anyone who’s ever been to Vermont recognizes that these people think and act differently from the rest of the country. Fiercely brave and unapologetically independent, Vermont cuts to the chase, unafraid to take clear and decisive action when it’s demanded.
Yesterday, the Vermont State Senate voted 26-3 (that’s pretty decisive, I would say) in favor of an amendment to the Constitution that would make clear that corporations should not be afforded the right of free speech that people enjoy under the First Amendment.
State Senator Virginia Lyons (D) led the charge. Nice going, Vermont!
I agree that something should be done so that the ability of corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to disseminate propaganda and undermine the political process should be ended. However, I’m not totally sure how to go about it.
If the ability of corporations to exercise the right of free speech were ended, then laws presumably could be enacted to eliminate all advertising by corporations. We could end up replacing one evil with another evil.
Dealing with the problem may well require a constitutional amendment since by long tradition, corporations have been treated as persons. In some respects, that is not a bad thing; for example, surely we would not want governments to take property from corporations without due process of law. But treating corporations as persons is, unfortunately, providing them with the capability to mislead people and distort the political process.
This is a matter that will require considerable thought, consideration, and discussion before taking action, else, we could end up with unintended consequences which reasonable people would not want. As my father used to say, legislative bodies spend much of their time trying to undo the unintended consequences of already enacted legislation; we should make a reasonable effort to avoid that.
Frank you are quite right!
Defending the right to Free Speech is only important when you don’t like what the other person or corporation is saying.
The removal of anyones rights guaranteed by the Constitution, is the start of a slippery slope to removing everyone’s rights.
Today you cheer for the State Senators attack on the Constitution because you don’t like corporations. Tomorrow, who will be next ?
The words of Pastor Martin Niemöller,still ring true,
First they came for the Communists,
and I did not speak out.
Because I was not a Communists.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists,
and I did not speak out.
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Social Democrats,
and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Social Democrat.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I did not speak out.
Because I was not a Catholic.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
I see the analogy, but I don’t accept it. Corporations are not people.
This comes from my mean dark side.
I agree with Craig. However the courts believe otherwise.
Since the courts believe corporations are people then I contend they should be subject to the same laws as people. If they want to be people then so be it. If they murder someone through their actions then the same laws should apply to them as apply to people. We should be able to prosecute, convict, and, if called for, execute them. I am not saying we should execute all the people in the corporation but rather to execute the company itself. Shut the company down. All of the employees are laid off. All of the stock holders lose everything. All of the assets are sold off and the proceeds pay reparations to the offended parties and the cost to the courts of investigation and prosecution and the remainder goes to pay down the national debt. No employees are allowed to bid on any part of the company being sold.
This will be extremely painful for all associated with the corporation. Stock holders may sue officers of the company for “wrongful death reparations”. Perhaps if this happens a couple of times corporations will plead with their elected representatives to not be people anymore and go back to being corporations. Perhaps they will also be more careful about how they conduct their business with the threat of death hanging over their heads like the rest of us. If the penalty is not death but instead incarceration then the corporation should be shutdown and not allowed to operate for the period of time equal to whatever a person would be in jail for. There should also be probation after their “release” the same as a person. If they want to have the same rights as people they should have the same responsibilities and consequences.
Graig,
Corporation are Legal entities for three reasons.
1) They can be held legally responsible for civil and criminal acts. Responsibility is a two way street. Society can not afford to dispense with corporations, and if accountable are entitled to protection of the law they pay for.
2) Corporations can be held accountable as citizens to act according to best interests of the nation.
3) ‘Corporations’ are made up of individuals. The Director are responsible to those shareholders, by depriving the corporation of right you are dispossessing those citizens.
I think the simplest action to deal with this at least to start with would be to force them to disclose what they are spending money on so that when you are watching an advertisement you know who funded it and have a view into where the advertisement came from.
For example, if an advertisement comes on denouncing one candidate and supporting another based on their stance on an oil pipeline or drilling project, we should be able to know which company funded that advertisement. That way we can choose to purchase that company’s products or look for alternatives from companies that are more aligned with our desires and beliefs.
The bottom line is, if they have the freedom to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising, we should be able to know what they are spending their money on so we can adjust our freedoms to support that company or not.
Full disclosure is all I am asking for here.
Brian, that’s a good idea and I think that it should be implemented. How well it would work in practice remains to be seen; we won’t know until it is tried. If it’s inadequate, perhaps some way could be implemented to refute the corporation funded propaganda instead of compromising the right of free speech. But surely enabling the public to know the source of funding for propaganda and political support would be a step in the right direction.
Marcopolo, the quotation from Pastor Martin Niemöller, who said that in Germany during the Nazi era, is just as relevant as when he initially said it. More people should be aware of it.
Lately I’ve been reading the biographies of the tycoons who were active during the Gilded Age. Things were even worse then than they are now. At that time, the Captains of Industry would actually go to legislative halls with a suitcase full of money, sometimes even exceeding $0.5 million, at a time when a dollar was worth 15 to 20 times what it is worth now. Buying legislators at the state and national levels was common; even judges were bought. Tycoons sometimes even owned newspapers or influenced publishers, for obvious reasons. For a few years, Henry Ford I owned a newspaper to enable him to disseminate his anti-Semitic views. The situation was corrected when the citizens had had enough of such corruption. Eventually I think that the present action of large corporations to exert undo influence will also be stopped. History tends to repeat itself, but usually not exactly.
Frank,
It’s important to remember that corporations are not he only organisations lobbying politicians and public opinion.
Organised Labour, Leftist lobbyists, hiding behind ‘concerned citizens’ non-profit foundations, religious groups,environmental etc.. also spend billions and have access to thousands of ‘volunteer’ demonstrators, and media to pursue political objectives.
The biggest threat to ‘free’ speech will come from attempts to restrict the internet.
Marcopolo,
It is not only corporations that should be required to state in their advertisements the source of the money to pay for them. Perhaps all such advertisements should state how much money the sponsoring organization has paid for such advertisements over the preceding 12 months. If, for example, an advertisement asserted that natural gas exploring creates no environmental hazards and the advertisement stated that XYZ company had spent $62.6 million on such ads over the last 12 months, people would be able to evaluate better the motives behind the ads.
The difficulties of implementing such legislation should not be underestimated. Corporations would seek ways to blunt the impact. They might create a separate organization for each ad thereby making it appear that they were spending very little on advertising. Probably ways could be found to deal with such deviousness, but it might not be easy.
Yes, to a certain extent social media balances advertising !
Political advertising has much less impact than people imagine. So does influence. For years every commentator sagely preaches about Rupert Murdoch’s ability to influence elections. In fact this is a complete myth.
Rupert Murdoch carefully cultivates this image, but in reality he’s just good a picking winners and switching early to the winning side. That’s how myths and legends are created.
But the real problem is who guards the guards.
Thomas Jefferson said,
“If it come to a choice of government without newspapers, or newspapers without government, I choose newspapers without government.”
Brian,
If you were to impose those sort of draconian laws, you would also have to give corporations the Vote!
It fact corporations don’t break laws,Directors and employees may, and when they do, then the law should prosequte those individuals who deserve the penalties, not the corporation.
Would you destroy the national economy, just to satisfy your weird idea of ‘justice’ ? Would you throw millions out of work and wipe out the life savings of many more millions, just to satisfy your viewpoint?
Fortunately, the question would never be tested, because now modern nation would attempt such a disastrous policy.
Corps. break the law and then get the law changed or vice versa. That is the issue its self. Who are you mesmerized by ? Where do you get the idea millions would lose? Corps. do not do what they do to employ and pay people, they do what they do to make money. That in and of it’s self is as American as it gets and great. When the greed to do so overrides peoples best or the worlds best interest and serves profit over BMP. issues arise. Here is the issue…..Pollution, slavery, Political corruption all in the name of America.
Corporations ARE fined for breaking laws. Although it’s true that it is the actions of CEOs, directors, executives, and other employees of corporations that break the laws, the corporations pay the fines.
In reality, it is not completely clear who actually pays the fines when a corporation is fined; there are multiple possibilities: The fines may be paid through reduced dividends; lower pay for the employees, including executives; and higher prices charged for the goods and services provided by the corporation. Who actually pays the fines is determined by the elasticity of demand for the products and services as well as other factors.
OK each corporation, no matter how large, can get one vote just like a person. I have no problem with that.
If the assets are sold off to others, I can’t imagine they wouldn’t pick up where the “executed” company left off after some amount of start up and reorganizing. At least some other enterprising individual would fill that void. Possibly from some smaller competition of the “executed coporation that would grow to fill the void. It is the American way after all. Those “millions” would would find themselves in damand for their skills and not be out of work for long and the resulting corporations and all that remained would likely be far more careful in the future to avoid a repeat of what just happened to the “executed” company. I can’t imagine this wouldn’t put absolute terror of breaking the law into them. Currently they run roughshod over the law with little ill effect to them.
Right on, we want our country back from the people who bought it.
You guys are teasing me, I start to think some of this stuff is so practical it could happen ! That is from my lightest happy side! Keep it up you are treading on some good thoughts.
Brian,
Although it is important for citizens to vote, voting is not necessarily the most effective way to influence legislation. Activities which influence public opinion can sway votes so if a corporation can sway enough votes to change the outcome of an election, which is possible at least in a close election, that would give it more influence than would permitting it to vote.
Also, lobbying activities influence the legislative process, an influence of which corporations also take frequent advantage. Lobbying is not NECESSARILY bad, even when it is done by corporations, if it uses objective information to influence legislators. Legislators cannot be highly competent on all the issues on which they vote, and lobbyists can be helpful in correctly informing legislators. Unfortunately, they can also misinform legislators to the detriment of the ordinary citizens.
This whole thing is very messy and sometimes there are no easy and simple solutions for problems.