Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Citizens United Case Debate?  (Read 928 times)

Gunner.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 381
    • View Profile
Re: Citizens United Case Debate?
« Reply #20 on: June 17, 2014, 06:43:20 PM »
And that's the worst part about the holding in this case.  A corporate entity is still legal fiction created for the sole purpose of doing business while limiting the liability of its owners. It seems awfully inconsistent with the purpose of the Constitution to afford Constitutional rights on an entity that doesn't have a soul and cannot be held accountable for its actions outside of monetary fines.

Maybe, but if you punish a thing like a person don't you need to be able to give it rights like a person?
Maybe someday they will remove the "personhood" of corporations (I am ok with it either way) but as a side thought on it, aren't they conduits of REAL people too though. I have yet to see a self aware autonomous corporation that isn't run by real people with real thoughts/opinions/emotions.

albeit all those people get their own votes as themselves, but just to put a spark of humanity into it is all

Citylaw

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
    • View Profile
Re: Citizens United Case Debate?
« Reply #21 on: June 17, 2014, 07:57:13 PM »
Nicely debate issues.

 I still side with Maintain , but Burning makes a great point that Corporations are not subject to anything other than fines.

At the end of the day however, corporations are run by people who can be prosecuted see Enron for criminal acts. If the people working at the corporation want to spend their money to promote an agenda that seems like free speech.

At the end day however, if individuals or members of a corporation want to spend money to support a presidential candidate, congressional candidate, etc then it is their choice.  I think spending money is a form of speech, but plenty of reasonable people will disagree with me. For any potential law students the debate of what is speech was one of the most interesting things in law school and this case is great for that issue.


Burning Sands, Esq.

  • Global Moderator
  • LSD Obsessed
  • ****
  • Posts: 7072
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Citizens United Case Debate?
« Reply #22 on: June 17, 2014, 09:56:55 PM »
Even if we accept that spending money is free speech, and further accept that corporations have a 1st Amendment right to it, that still doesn't take into consideration that no right is absolute. All of our constitutional rights are subject to reasonable restrictions by the state and federal governments.  That includes the 1st Amendment.  Under the 1st Amendment, we have the right to free speech, but states can still make laws that prevent us from making threats to other people or from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.  Why should this be any different? 

Or perhaps the better question is this: why should a corporation have an absolute right to free speech when human beings do not?

"A lawyer's either a social engineer or a parasite on society. A social engineer is a highly skilled...lawyer who understands the Constitution of the U.S. and knows how to explore its uses in the solving of problems of local communities and in bettering [our] conditions."
Charles H. Houston

Gunner.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 381
    • View Profile
Re: Citizens United Case Debate?
« Reply #23 on: June 17, 2014, 11:29:55 PM »
Everything is "free speech" or expression if you want it to be

If USEING money is speech then wouldn't NOT using it be too????

"Dear US govt, I wish to use my speech rights to not pay you my student loans to express my.....um.........love for poodles or whatever...........NO MONEY!!!!!"