The SCOTUS dramatically ruled unconstitutional a set of federal laws that restricted the speech of corporations. Click here for a link to that opinion and the various concurring and dissenting opinions. (Everyone seemed to have something to say on the subject.)

The vote was 5-4. But Justice Thomas would have gone one step further and knock out any disclosure and reporting requirements, arguing that anonymous political speech is also valuable.

How will this case change Texas election laws? Will political speech get better or worse?

[This message was edited by JB on 01-24-10 at .]

[This message was edited by JB on 01-24-10 at .]

I think it is probably one more step toward government being run by big business. I am curious how others feel about it. I was also wondering how many offices had cases involving this. Have you ever had a case in Williamson? I would suppose that Travis County deals with it more than anyone, but I don't know if that is true.

My two (OK, three) cents:

(1) The Court did not strike down (yet) state laws prohibiting direct contributions from corporations and labor unions to political candidates. That limits the impact this will have.

(2) Seems to me that the real losers are the 527 groups and the political parties--why give to them when you can run your own ads now?--arguably making elections more open, which could be fun to watch.

(3) I once read that America spends more money on chewing gum (!) every year than it does on political campaigns. "Chew" on that ....

I'm sure we'll get along somehow, just like we did in those dark days long ago before McCain-Feingold came along.

2002, wasn't it? Ah, the days of yore.

I think that corporations aren't people, and they should not have the same rights as people. A corporation is, by definition, an entity created solely to make money. It has no human conscience. It should not have the same rights as a citizen of the United States.
What's next, a corporate right to vote?
Also, can Congress regulate US corporations which are primarily funded by foreign investors? What happens when China sets up a shell corporation in the US to support the politicians who will work for China's best interests? Can that now be regulated?

The argument about corporations not being people was intriguing to me. I thought (without doing any research or knowing much about the legal niceties) that it would rule the day. So, I read the opinions to focus on that discussion.

I found there were some interesting points made:

1) The first amendment doesn't focus on the person; it focuses on the "speech" without regard to how the words are presented. An interesting note if you tend to rely largely on the words of the Constitution rather than some sense of what it all means.

2) Corporations are simply associations created by people for the transaction of business and the delivery of information. While I agree that corporations largely exist to shield individuals from liability and provide a framework for commerce, there is a lot of information delivery going on.

3) Most modern media is delivered through a corporation. Early newspapers and such were owned by individuals. Today, the big media conglomerates are hardly based on those early forms of information delivery. In theory, then, the principle adopted in federal law could be used to prevent modern media from delivering information simply because it is being transmitted through a corporation. That might be a rhetorical exaggeration, but it does make one hesitate to think that the corporate model is just a form of commerce.

4) Once again, the First Amendment is based upon the notion that there can't be too much information. Given all the junk on cable, you might disagree, but there does continue to be some support for the marketplace of ideas settling disputes.

It will be an interesting political season. Stay tuned.

Do you then think that corporations should not be prosecuted, or have the same rights as other defendants if prosecuted? Just curious about that. It's an interesting argument. (FWIW, I also worry that this means that corporations will *eventually* be able to render all but silent the individuals that compose the electorate.)

I think those are legitimate concerns. But the majority in SCOTUS concluded that those concerns, even if legitimate, don't overcome the language of the First Amendment. In other words, government doesn't get to censor speech because of concerns about the effect of the speech. (SCOTUS did note that some environments do justify such censorship -- schools and prisons, for example.)

I imagine that Congress will respond by focusing on disclosure and reporting requirements.

An interesting point -- and I can't remember if this was in one of the opinions or in one of the analyses I've seen -- was that really big corporations just spin off PACs anyway to do all the speaking they want. There are a lot of rules and regulations on PACs, so it ended up that only the big corporations could do that. So really big corporations can speak all they want, but the small or medium-sized ones are forbidden from anything.

In general, I tend to think that the best cure for bad speech is more speech. I prefer to keep things as open as possible, and let me decide which speech I want to pay attention to.

I do not like the Citizens United opinion but could live with it if disclosure of the speaker is required. At least if it is required, quid pro quo and coordination between the corporate ad and the official campaign ad are more readily known. I understand that disclosure is next on the list of the supporters of Citizens United.
I am also concerned with the possibility that a Chinese or a Saudi company could merely buy a candidate. In fact the opinion clearly allows that. Here's why. Do you know who owns Fox News Corporation, Exxon, or General Electric? That is right, investors from all over the world. So any multi-national corporation could currently be under the sway of a foreign national and could buy a candidate. Since I think the opinion is probably right on its 1st Amendment interpretation, disclosure of who is speaking is the only protection from these problems. The argument against disclosure is the chilling effect it might have on the speaker.
In a final aside a disclosure question is on the way to SCOTUS as we speak.

One thing that struck me upon hearing the hubub and office discussion about the case, and admittedly without a thorough reading of the various opinions, is the place of the shareholder.

The corporate entity is "speaking" for or against a candidate or political policy or agenda with money contributed by shareholders for the express purpose of commerce and profit. Such funds were not intended to be used for political speech and, indeed, may have been directed quite differently by the individual shareholders had such a purpose been contemplated.

Moreover with political action committess and other non-profits already providing avenues for such aggregated group spending, I'm unclear as to why this particular type of reform was needed?

One would hope that the mandatory disclosures for publicly traded companies would help reign in the board and executives' spending on political speech, but were that so we might not have had an Enron, the toxic assets issue, the poison pill option in corporate bylaws, or any other number of measures in the power struggle between shareholders and executives.

And what about me the lowly citizen with some retirement money in a mutual fund? Why should my retirement money go through a mutual fund to an otherwise wise investment in a company that will then spend some portion of that money on political speech to which I am strongly opposed?

I have heard some commentators suggest that Congress could do what Britain has done: require that these ads, in whatever form, disclose the sponsor, AND that in the case of corporations, that shareholders approve the use of corporate funds for political purposes.

Janette A

When most people hear "corporation," they seem to think of the Walmarts, Microsofts, and Exxons. However, I think shareholder and customer considerations will keep them on the sidelines. Walmart is not going to run commercials for or against a candidate b/c it will alienate those shareholders and customers.

The corporations who will benefit are the private associations like the AMA, ABA, Chambers of Commerce, etc., that are not incorporated to make money to begin with. They are a prime example of one of those other 1st Amendment rights: The freedom of association. (Same with labor unions, to whom the ruling also applies.) But legally, those associations are all "corporations," even if not incorporated for profit. Under this ruling, rather than "launder" money through PACs, 527s, or political parties, they can cut out those middlemen and run issue ads. I think it will have almost no effect on the amount of money spent, it will just change how it is spent, and that arguably makes the system more honest, disclosure-wise.

Oh, and if you think corporations weren't already "buying" some politicians before this ruling, you were kidding yourself.

Shannon, when does TDCAA come out with its first ad?

Some corporations would risk their non-profit/tax exempt status by paying for political ads even in the wake of this opinion, a separate legal issue.

Shannon, cancel that first ad.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JB:
Shannon, when does TDCAA come out with its first ad?

---

I was thinking of something like this:

"Change" You Can Believe In

Says TEC:

"it is our position that corporations are allowed to make all types of direct campaign expenditures (as defined by Section 251.001(8) of the Election Code and Section 20.1(5) of the Texas Ethics Commission Rules and referred to in Citizens United as independent expenditures) regulated by Title 15 of the Election Code. It is also our position that corporations are still prohibited from making political contributions unless specifically allowed by Title 15 of the Election Code."


http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/whatsnew/US_Supreme_Court_Ruling.html