Supreme Court rejects limits on corporate spending in electoral campaigns | Hacker News Reader

Supreme Court rejects limits on corporate spending in electoral campaigns

washingtonpost.com

17 pointsblasdel29 comments

"When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought," the court said in a decision written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. "This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."

Seems like a fairly compelling argument to me.

I don't really disagree, but this is a way for corporations to pay politicians hundreds of millions of dollars.

I think that at the very least they should just apply the restrictions on the campaigners directly to the special interest groups instead of doing so transitively: "We're ExxonMobil, and we approve this message"

Corporations and unions are not sentient beings.

Maybe they're something even more than sentient, just like a brain is more than its neurons.

No, but they are composed entirely of sentient beings.

Yes, but corporations are a way for sentient beings to skirt liability. A corporation cannot go to prison for life. A corporation is designed with the goal of producing profit for its sentient owners/shareholders. It has no interest in leading a "healthy" life, only a profitable life.

A corporation can be put to death, and with no due process. See e.g. Arthur Anderson, which was eventually exonerated by the Supreme Court. But long after it was dead.

And that threat can get them to do crazy things, e.g. that's what wrecked AIG a few years before the financial crisis.

It is a compelling argument.

However, it doesn't say that there is NOT a problem with having corporations pay to educate the populace about political candidates. Government regulation doesn't seem to be the answer, given this argument. That's fine. But where do the check's and balances on information come from?

Google, I suppose.

The above statement is compelling. However, the law suit was about limitation on spending by corporations for elections. There has been a long standing argument that "money == speech" or more verbosely, "spending money to get your message out is covered under the first amendment". I don't buy this core argument although I do buy the above statement you quoted.

This is actually a very interesting argument. This turns the normal argument on it's head. Usually the thinking was money = speech, and if a company is a legal "person" then restricting contributions is restricting the speech of the company.

However, this is framed from the point of view of a hypothetical person (voter), not the company. In this case, he is arguing that by restricting the speech of the company, we restrict the sources of information for a person (voter).

In other words, it isn't the act of restricting the speech of the company that is unlawful, but the limiting the ability of the voter to hear the speech that is unlawful.

Kennedy also had this to say... "The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy."

Forgive me if I don't take his arguments too seriously if he believes that individuals are not affected by seeing quantities of money they do not have access to sway decisions that directly affect them.

Shiploads of cash are intended to skew the view of the folks involved (whether as a bribe or as a form of handcuff, same as employment), or folks would not spend the cash.

But then following this decision to a logical extreme is equally jarring; I wonder when corporations will get the right to vote.

You are right. They will be affected. It is not practical to try to limit speech/ads etc. It's not one of the values we have traditionally had. What does this leave us with?

Power will always attract money so let's have less power.

I would begin with a constitutional amendment redefining a corporation such that it does not have personhood (as was given in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad). It is that personhood which provides the basis of a corporation's 'free speech' argument.

That personhood obscures the fact that a corporation, as a profitable entity, has access to far greater resources than almost any single person, and does not suffer the same consequences of their actions as a single person. For example, if a person kills, the person is tried for murder and punished according to the nature of the crime; if a corporation kills, they are at best assigned a monetary fine which is often hardly a drop in the bucket and subject to a lengthy court process.

That's silly on several levels. See my comment on how the death penalty is easily applied or more often threatened to corporations.

Plus you are forgetting that this case is about a non-profit corporation that was blocked in promoting a movie about Hillary Clinton for the 2008 election (the case is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission). You're promoting trampling on freedom of association as well, preventing a group of like minded people combining to have a voice in the political process (note that for this ruling, unions have also been freed from that appalling 1990 decision as well as McCain-Fiengold's censorship).

Bottom line for me: the answer to speech you don't like is more speech, not outright censorship of core political speech. If the First Amendment means anything, it means the Congress can't ban core political speech.

Ah, here's Kennedy from the decision saying the same thing:

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Let's take an example. Imagine that I start a company. I IPO but retain 51% ownership. Let's say that the remaining 49% of that company is owned by 1,000 individuals. Now let's say that this company can become more profitable by cutting a few corners, with the problem that these corners are currently unlawful. As the majority owner I decide to use the companies "free speech" to grease the wheels of a few politicians who can make these laws go away.

This companies "free speech" is now funded by over 1,000 shareholders. Some of which may not even support the message being produced. Are you aware of all of the lobbying done by the companies in which you own stock? Does the corporate voice truly represent those of the shareholders?

It's not a problem as long as politicians are required to report their funding sources. One politician receiving a million dollars from a corporation is free publicity for the opposing politician.

This doesn't change anything about what companies can do with politicians, e.g. "coordinating" let alone contributions, both of those are still forbidden.

I'm speechless, and the result of this decision will make that more so, relative to rich non-person corporations.

you're not entitled to equal power of speech or equal anything for that matter. just freedom of speech. you can say anything you like. you have to earn being heard.

Yes, apparently with wads of cash instead of something like, oh I don't know, rationale or expertise.

I am an infallible bureaucrat working at the Ministry of Justice in Communications and have judged that your comment should be deleted. Let me remind you that while the system is not perfect, it is better than nothing. Never mind the fact that I've worked out a deal to go work for R. Murdoch once my stint at this shitty job is over.

Fine, can we jail a few corporations now?

I would also like politicians to wear sponsor tags like nascar drivers.

I may as well be asking for a pony.

I posted a day or two ago that I'm leaving the US, and I'm not kidding.

Where are you planning to go?

Some place with less freedom of speech, since that to the best of my knowledge describes every other country in the world.

It makes a certain amount of sense: pmichaud is appalled by an increase in the freedom of speech (really, a return to the pre-1990 normal state of affairs) and wherever he goes, there will be less of it.

I'm considering New Zealand.

>The court split 5 to 4 over the ruling, with its conservative members in the majority

Can't say I'm surprised.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com