I think he hits the nail square on the head at 5:30. We need Constitutional Amendment to abolish "Corporate Personhood" and ban corporations from politics. A movement is currently underway to accomplish this: Move To Amend (dot) org.
If corporate personhood wer abolished you could not sue a corporation.
Thus if bad or a faulty car killed your child you would have to find the specific employee that is responsible and you could only sue that empolyee.
Good luck collected a multimillion dollar settlement from an $18/hr factory worker.
I corporate personhood were abolished, then congress and the states could discriminate against minority owned corporations as well as seize their property on a whim.
@meadbert You are correct in that granting corporations some of the characteristics of a person is important in the legal system. When I advocate abolishing "Corporate Personhood" I do not refer to what you are thinking of.
The Supreme Court has been using corporations' legal classification as a "person" to misapply the bill of rights, and allow them to have influence in the political system--through lobbying and campaign donations. This must stop.
@wbaltzley as Justice Stevens Said in his dissenting . . . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their “personhood” often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.
@wbaltzley We must pass a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the court from making this mistake--from expanding corporate power through a warped interpretation of the fourteenth amendment and the bill of rights.
We must declare with absolute clarity that the protections of the bill of rights do NOT apply to corporations--that corporations are NOT people (for this purpose), and should influence our elections.
The trouble with declaring that corporations have no free speech, is that presumably schools, churches and political parties (all of which are incorporated) have no free speech. I cannot imagine letting congress ban the teaching of evolution by schools, outlawing the teaching of the Koran or forbidding the Communist party from promoting Marxism.
Freedom of speech implies one person talks to another so it is not an individual right, but a right of a group.
@meadbert I respect your concerns about government repression and admire your devotion to the Bill of Rights. The Constitution stands as a bulwark to protect against the violation of INDIVIDUAL rights. Each individual within a school, church, business, or political party would continue to enjoy that protection--but Corporations, Trusts, Unions, etc would not be allowed influence elections and buy political favors.
Many of these rights are not so individual. If freedom of speech were only an individual right then it would only confer the right to speak to oneself. Instead it applies to groups allowing groups to share ideas. It is not limited to to citizens or even living people. Clearly the freedom of association is not an individual right.
Since most religions consist of some form of social gathering that is also not an individual right.
@meadbert I disagree--freedom of assembly IS an individual right. Assemblies (including churches) are made up of individuals. These groups speak through individuals.
And on a side note, a dead individual is still an individual.
Certain rights (like freedome of speech and assembly) are not individual in that if one person's rights are taken away so are other peoples. If one person loses the freedom to assemble other cannot assemble with them.
If a foreigner is banned from publishing a controversial book, then I have lost the right to read that book so my free speech rights are denied.
One cannot take away a corporation's right to free speech without also taking away my right to hear their speech.
@meadbert That is a very interesting argument, but it is "illogical" as a very old Mr. Spock might say. If this were true, then the entire prison system would be unconstitutional--we would be denying the people the right to assemble with murderers, thieves, etc.
@wbaltzley I know of no clause in the Constitution that guarantees a person the right to hear another person speak. If this were true, then copyright laws would also be unconstitutional--since they restrict who can and cannot hear a person speak.
If corporations have no free speech, then The New York Times, MSNBC and YouTube have no free speech. Congress could regulate every newspaper article, every TV Show and even every post on YouTube. This would be incompatible with a free society.
The Supreme court was correct to defend out liberties.
You tube has disclaimer that the openions of users is not their but the individual posters.
As for the newspapers, TV shows etc... they can present opposing viewpoints and report news, that is it. Yes I believe they should be accountable, starting with Fox News (fixnews) whose newscasters lead tea partying and then cover it in their shows.
It does not matter whose the opinion is. If YouTube has no free speech then they cannot print something "illegal" regardless of whether it is theirs or someone else's opinion.
You suggestion that the government should hold the media accountable is backwards. Media holds the government accountable. Imagine if Bush could have banned cricism of him! The Media is only accountable to its customer base, the people.
There is a law that Media has to stick with a code of conduct. Fix news is violating that. If you say something against the government and I show the document you printed at that, It doesn't make the content mine. You have it twisted buddy. Fact is Reps are acting like a crazed animal. There ideology is anit social and anti America. They have nothing to how us but put a "NO" sign for everything progressive and repeal a 60 year low. Pathetic.
Venezuala and Russia close down Media companies that do not follow "codes of conduct," but this is America. We have free speech and freedom of the press!
Corporations are treated as legal people. This means you can sue them. They can sue you. They can make contracts. The government cannot seize their property without a warrant. They have freedom of speech.
Corporations are not political or actual people. They can neither vote nor run for office.
"Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." - Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)
HOLY HOLY HOLY HELL...China, Russia, Iran, N.Korea and India are circle jerking each other in celebration right now.... 100's of millions of millions against our the public voice. wooooooooooooooooooooooow
Predatory corporations already own Washington. The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ad campaigns against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do anything they want to increase profits.
You think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now. Just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
@goog2k This will also mean that corporations will be able to control politicians' images more than the politicians themselves. They can out purchase any campaign in terms of airtime.
Americans are so lazy and thoughtless about maintaining their Democracy. The U S Supreme Court's ruling means WE are responsible for finding out who the candidate is and what he or she is about.. We can not depend of the media.
Wow, the guy is an idiot. This decision was NOT JUDICIAL ACTIVISM. The constitution says and i quote - "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech". The Supreme Court was following the constitution explicitly, therefore not being judicial activism.
No, sir. YOU are an idiot. The constitution was talking about people, not corporations. You think those men fought and bled to free themselves from British monarchy to hand power over to an entity that cannot even vote? Oh, well. Sorry to disturb you. Please go back to worshiping the rich.
The constitution said, no law abridging the freedom of speech. This applies to everyone and everything. No law means no law. It doesnt mean, oh we can abridge the freedom of speech of this group of people, organized in this way (which a corporation is), but not this group of people.
@AegeanProphet Parsing words does not make something true, pal. You are honestly telling me you think the founding fathers would be OK with this? I could not disagree more.
Yes they would be okay with this. The founding fathers wouldn't 1. want their constitution poo-pood upon- that was one of their greatest achievements and 2. would be against limiting speech in any way. It gives the government too much power and the power of government is much more dangerous than that of big business- as long as the business is not government owned.
@AegeanProphet Well you're 100% wrong and your arguments are a stream of fallacies. La tee da. And if you think government is "more dangerous" than corporations you have not had much experience in the real world, hon.
The Constitution applies to people as both a nation (the group) and as individuals. When corporations speak for or against politicians, it is usually a select group of people at the top, using the power of the combined voice of every member of the corporation as their own voice...even though not every member would necessarily agree with those at the top.
You trying to pass this ruling as Constitutional shows just how blatantly ignorant you and those 5 justices truly are.
Why should a corporation, which is a large group of people providing capital for a venture directed by a small few, be given the same status as a person?
Unlike democracy, the CEOs in corporations are not elected to reflect the people. Their only goal is to make more money, responsibly or otherwise.
You can work for a company, but disagree with their views. Now they can go right over your head and spend the money you put in the pool for whatever they see fit. It's sick, and it's wrong.
Abraham Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864.
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
The United States Government more and more is passing legislation to benefit the interests of corporations to the detriment of the American people. Things are just going to get worse from here.
- Each human ( U.S. citizen ) within the corporations already can individually vote once, and speak out or donate anytime to or for their chosen political candidate. - Corporations are entities, and Not U.S. citizens. - Corporate VOICES are ALREADY HEARD on an individual HUMAN basis within the corp... - The court has mistakenly given foreign corporate ENTITIES the speaking voice rights of a U.S. HUMANs citizenship. - And so, what is a corp. ? - an entity ?.. or a human U.S. citizen ?
we need to go to the streets and shut them down, we need a REVOLUTION, ordinary people needs to take back its power and its rights, but this is hardly done while sitting front of the TV watching stupid adverts on stupid products, brainwashing our brains with info-entertainment instead of real and truthful news
Citizen's United vs. FEC was a good thing! Thank you Roberts Court!
Class-baiting Dems are now obsolete: watch?v=wlzmMIIHudw
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
I think he hits the nail square on the head at 5:30. We need Constitutional Amendment to abolish "Corporate Personhood" and ban corporations from politics. A movement is currently underway to accomplish this: Move To Amend (dot) org.
wbaltzley 1 year ago
@wbaltzley
If corporate personhood wer abolished you could not sue a corporation.
Thus if bad or a faulty car killed your child you would have to find the specific employee that is responsible and you could only sue that empolyee.
Good luck collected a multimillion dollar settlement from an $18/hr factory worker.
I corporate personhood were abolished, then congress and the states could discriminate against minority owned corporations as well as seize their property on a whim.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert You are correct in that granting corporations some of the characteristics of a person is important in the legal system. When I advocate abolishing "Corporate Personhood" I do not refer to what you are thinking of.
The Supreme Court has been using corporations' legal classification as a "person" to misapply the bill of rights, and allow them to have influence in the political system--through lobbying and campaign donations. This must stop.
wbaltzley 1 year ago
@wbaltzley as Justice Stevens Said in his dissenting . . . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their “personhood” often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.
wbaltzley 1 year ago
@wbaltzley We must pass a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the court from making this mistake--from expanding corporate power through a warped interpretation of the fourteenth amendment and the bill of rights.
We must declare with absolute clarity that the protections of the bill of rights do NOT apply to corporations--that corporations are NOT people (for this purpose), and should influence our elections.
wbaltzley 1 year ago
@wbaltzley
The trouble with declaring that corporations have no free speech, is that presumably schools, churches and political parties (all of which are incorporated) have no free speech. I cannot imagine letting congress ban the teaching of evolution by schools, outlawing the teaching of the Koran or forbidding the Communist party from promoting Marxism.
Freedom of speech implies one person talks to another so it is not an individual right, but a right of a group.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert I respect your concerns about government repression and admire your devotion to the Bill of Rights. The Constitution stands as a bulwark to protect against the violation of INDIVIDUAL rights. Each individual within a school, church, business, or political party would continue to enjoy that protection--but Corporations, Trusts, Unions, etc would not be allowed influence elections and buy political favors.
wbaltzley 1 year ago
@wbaltzley
Many of these rights are not so individual. If freedom of speech were only an individual right then it would only confer the right to speak to oneself. Instead it applies to groups allowing groups to share ideas. It is not limited to to citizens or even living people. Clearly the freedom of association is not an individual right.
Since most religions consist of some form of social gathering that is also not an individual right.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert I disagree--freedom of assembly IS an individual right. Assemblies (including churches) are made up of individuals. These groups speak through individuals.
And on a side note, a dead individual is still an individual.
wbaltzley 1 year ago
@wbaltzley
Certain rights (like freedome of speech and assembly) are not individual in that if one person's rights are taken away so are other peoples. If one person loses the freedom to assemble other cannot assemble with them.
If a foreigner is banned from publishing a controversial book, then I have lost the right to read that book so my free speech rights are denied.
One cannot take away a corporation's right to free speech without also taking away my right to hear their speech.
meadbert 1 year ago
@meadbert That is a very interesting argument, but it is "illogical" as a very old Mr. Spock might say. If this were true, then the entire prison system would be unconstitutional--we would be denying the people the right to assemble with murderers, thieves, etc.
wbaltzley 1 year ago
@wbaltzley I know of no clause in the Constitution that guarantees a person the right to hear another person speak. If this were true, then copyright laws would also be unconstitutional--since they restrict who can and cannot hear a person speak.
wbaltzley 1 year ago
Every court member who voted for this needs to be charged with treason.
SCooks5364 1 year ago
How on earth can we not just give the fuck up?
They can have their lousy fucking country and rot in it. Fuckers!
MoJoSB 2 years ago
If corporations have no free speech, then The New York Times, MSNBC and YouTube have no free speech. Congress could regulate every newspaper article, every TV Show and even every post on YouTube. This would be incompatible with a free society.
The Supreme court was correct to defend out liberties.
meadbert 2 years ago
You tube has disclaimer that the openions of users is not their but the individual posters.
As for the newspapers, TV shows etc... they can present opposing viewpoints and report news, that is it. Yes I believe they should be accountable, starting with Fox News (fixnews) whose newscasters lead tea partying and then cover it in their shows.
lamrof 2 years ago
It does not matter whose the opinion is. If YouTube has no free speech then they cannot print something "illegal" regardless of whether it is theirs or someone else's opinion.
You suggestion that the government should hold the media accountable is backwards. Media holds the government accountable. Imagine if Bush could have banned cricism of him! The Media is only accountable to its customer base, the people.
meadbert 2 years ago
There is a law that Media has to stick with a code of conduct. Fix news is violating that. If you say something against the government and I show the document you printed at that, It doesn't make the content mine. You have it twisted buddy. Fact is Reps are acting like a crazed animal. There ideology is anit social and anti America. They have nothing to how us but put a "NO" sign for everything progressive and repeal a 60 year low. Pathetic.
lamrof 2 years ago
Venezuala and Russia close down Media companies that do not follow "codes of conduct," but this is America. We have free speech and freedom of the press!
meadbert 2 years ago
If the corporation is a person then let them vote.
lamrof 2 years ago
Corporations are treated as legal people. This means you can sue them. They can sue you. They can make contracts. The government cannot seize their property without a warrant. They have freedom of speech.
Corporations are not political or actual people. They can neither vote nor run for office.
meadbert 2 years ago
Here goes the republicans, they are really have become like a crazed rat ransacking the closet.
lamrof 2 years ago
"Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." - Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)
AsDesigned 2 years ago
HOLY HOLY HOLY HELL...China, Russia, Iran, N.Korea and India are circle jerking each other in celebration right now.... 100's of millions of millions against our the public voice. wooooooooooooooooooooooow
mbenall3 2 years ago
The ultimate hopes here are a few key factors:
1) This HORRID ruling is overturned by the other two Gov't branches.
2) A permanent law is put into action the will prevent any other rulings like this from being done in the near or distant future.
3) The 5 justices who rules this are shot. Promptly.
AndrewDeLong 2 years ago
Predatory corporations already own Washington. The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ad campaigns against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do anything they want to increase profits.
You think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now. Just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
We haven't seen anything yet.
goog2k 2 years ago 3
@goog2k 1000% correct, goog.
bgbreakdown 2 years ago
@goog2k This will also mean that corporations will be able to control politicians' images more than the politicians themselves. They can out purchase any campaign in terms of airtime.
mstraney 2 years ago
Exactly mstraney. Politicians will be forced to go along with corporations if they even threaten them with an attack campaign.
goog2k 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the ultimate merger of corporate and state power" - Benito Mussolini
bapyou 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Someone previously marked MissMoxie78's comments as spam, so I thought I'd repost this:
If you are against the supreme courts ruling sign the petition at Savedemocracy(dot)net and then pass it on to everyone you know. Thank you.
It's f*'d up that even here, people are trying to silence dissenters to this corporate takeover.
321liftoff 2 years ago
Americans are so lazy and thoughtless about maintaining their Democracy. The U S Supreme Court's ruling means WE are responsible for finding out who the candidate is and what he or she is about.. We can not depend of the media.
MJofSanFran 2 years ago
Wow, the guy is an idiot. This decision was NOT JUDICIAL ACTIVISM. The constitution says and i quote - "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech". The Supreme Court was following the constitution explicitly, therefore not being judicial activism.
AegeanProphet 2 years ago
No, sir. YOU are an idiot. The constitution was talking about people, not corporations. You think those men fought and bled to free themselves from British monarchy to hand power over to an entity that cannot even vote? Oh, well. Sorry to disturb you. Please go back to worshiping the rich.
bgbreakdown 2 years ago
The constitution said, no law abridging the freedom of speech. This applies to everyone and everything. No law means no law. It doesnt mean, oh we can abridge the freedom of speech of this group of people, organized in this way (which a corporation is), but not this group of people.
AegeanProphet 2 years ago
@AegeanProphet Parsing words does not make something true, pal. You are honestly telling me you think the founding fathers would be OK with this? I could not disagree more.
bgbreakdown 2 years ago
Yes they would be okay with this. The founding fathers wouldn't 1. want their constitution poo-pood upon- that was one of their greatest achievements and 2. would be against limiting speech in any way. It gives the government too much power and the power of government is much more dangerous than that of big business- as long as the business is not government owned.
AegeanProphet 2 years ago
@AegeanProphet Well you're 100% wrong and your arguments are a stream of fallacies. La tee da. And if you think government is "more dangerous" than corporations you have not had much experience in the real world, hon.
bgbreakdown 2 years ago
Explain to me then, how these arguments are fallacies.
AegeanProphet 2 years ago
@AegeanProphet you obviously have NO IDEA what is/has been going on.
661berkley 2 years ago
@AegeanProphet
The Constitution applies to people as both a nation (the group) and as individuals. When corporations speak for or against politicians, it is usually a select group of people at the top, using the power of the combined voice of every member of the corporation as their own voice...even though not every member would necessarily agree with those at the top.
You trying to pass this ruling as Constitutional shows just how blatantly ignorant you and those 5 justices truly are.
AndrewDeLong 2 years ago
Why should a corporation, which is a large group of people providing capital for a venture directed by a small few, be given the same status as a person?
Unlike democracy, the CEOs in corporations are not elected to reflect the people. Their only goal is to make more money, responsibly or otherwise.
You can work for a company, but disagree with their views. Now they can go right over your head and spend the money you put in the pool for whatever they see fit. It's sick, and it's wrong.
321liftoff 2 years ago
Obama = Bush
oceanbound222 2 years ago
Bush lite
zoticus1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Abraham Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864.
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
DKPS22 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The United States Government more and more is passing legislation to benefit the interests of corporations to the detriment of the American people. Things are just going to get worse from here.
stopcorporatism 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
pioneerpaddler 2 years ago
When votes of only five (5) non-elected single
individuals can sell out Americas voting rights to
foreign owned corporations who will most certainly
sway uninformed future voters with big money . . . .
. . . . it may be time for America to re-think about
which decisions should be made by public ballot.
As for corporate speech rights... ask an
average corporate worker who labors at or just over
minimum wage if their voice is heard as their
CEO takes home multi millions $ each year.
pioneerpaddler 2 years ago 2
democracy is not over, democracy has been over for some time now....basically your purchasing power is where your freedom ends...
silvercoin1111 2 years ago
America is over.
bgbreakdown 2 years ago
we need to go to the streets and shut them down, we need a REVOLUTION, ordinary people needs to take back its power and its rights, but this is hardly done while sitting front of the TV watching stupid adverts on stupid products, brainwashing our brains with info-entertainment instead of real and truthful news
silvercoin1111 2 years ago
possibly the worst ruling in history, though dred scott's obviously tough competition.
basically democracy is over. money will now be the only factor in elections. it's very sad.
highway234 2 years ago 7
@highway234 Bullshit: Citizen's United vs. FEC was a good thing! Thank you Roberts Court! Class-baiting Dems are now obsolete: watch?v=wlzmMIIHudw
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz leave it to a freedom-hating "conservative" to celebrate america becoming a one-party state. next stop: theocracy.
LiberaLib 1 year ago