Bradley A. Smith on Campaign Finance Reform and Free Speech

[Parent33w]

Nice vocabulary; very articulate absurdity. Answer two questions. What does any corporate legal fiction, or union for that matter, have in common with an individual person or " the people"? Even better, name ONE principle/element of separation of powers, federalism, representational majority rule, or individual rights that isn't INHERENTLY violated at the very core from the onset. Debating "Spirit of the Law" is unnecessary. The very mechanism of democracy itself is fundamentally violated.

[Ciaresayton]

By observation I can tell you would all be very successful on the tv show, Im smarter than a 4th grader, but why are you playing at-home jeopardy instead of commenting specifically on this video's topic?

$150.00 per INDIVIDUAL, per CANDIDATE, per ELECTION.

If the 30 million Americans who have their head up their ass each week until Ryan Seacrest tells them to pull it out to vote for their favorite singing pie hole, then we will never accomplish anything our inherant freedoms as voters allow

[adsense1]

Corporations had tried since the founding of the republic to make this same case. The 14th amendment has been so perverted that it is rare to find a constitutional lawyer on either side of the philosophical spectrum That doesn't see some irony in the fact that corporations used this to free themselves from the jeffersonian model of the rights of the individual while at virtually the same time the Jim Crow laws were being passed by using the exact same logic....

[XCritonX]

Companies are people. We use corporations to organize (or assemble) people into teams for lawful purposes. This is basic business knowledge. To prevent the freedom of organized assemblies of citizens from expressing their ideas and opinions is TREASON! It is treason against the constitution your Republic is based on! Your forefathers died to free you from dictators. Why do you vote new ones in each year? Do you hold your freedom so cheaply? Do you despise their sacrifice?

[herbs814]

good point. laws against corporate liberty are violations of the right to assemble peaceably and the right to petition government for the redress of grievances as well as the rights of free speech and expression and free commerce.

[adsense1]

I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. Thomas Jefferson 1816. The Author of the Constitution...

[herbs814]

Jefferson was not the author of the constitution. He was not even involved in the deliberations to draft the constitution. Jefferson was an ambassador to France when Madison authored the constitution.

What is a corporation? A corporation is a legal entity that manipulates the government to seek favors at the expense of the people. The answer is NOT to increase the power of government, which grants the favors, but to limit the power of government to favor corporations and political patrons.

[adsense1]

Breaking with Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton in 1791, Madison and Thomas Jefferson organized what they called the Republican Party (later called the Democratic-Republican Party) in opposition to key policies of the Federalists, especially the national bank and the Jay Treaty. He secretly co-authored, along with Thomas Jefferson, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in 1798 to protest the Alien and Sedition Acts. I also suggest you read Jefferson's letters from Paris to Madison.

[herbs814]

Libertarians and conservatives are the hiers to Jefferson and Madison. Socialist democrats are the heirs to federalists and central bankers.

The danger is not in the assembling of citizens, such as corporations, but in the expansive government privileges that the government offers its political cronies in violation of the constitution. It is government power, not the first amendment, that needs to limited.

[adsense1]

Corporations while they did exist at this time were usually formed for some civic enterprise by the people. It was natural to look upon this as a extension of the individual. Jefferson and Madison warned against the moneyed interest banding together and controlling public opinion. A corporation in these days was a highly nationalist tool. It would never dare go against the interest of the state. Measure that with todays corporation and Multi-national conglomerates. Jefferson Saw this clearly.

[herbs814]

The threat from a multinational corporation is its ability to buy government favors. Limit government power and you limit the threat of corporate power.

The answer to the government-corporate complex of big government and big corporations is to limit government power and allow consumers and small business to challenge corporate power. Power to the people, not the government-corporation complex.

[adsense1]

Basically what I am saying is that it was the corporations and the pervertion of the 14th amendment that gave the government the very power of which you speak. I couldn't agree more about limiting the powers of the government. However the corporations do not agree. They want the government big and taxing and awarding contracts. When the judges began ruling that a moneyed corporation had the same rights as a citizen, the corporations began growing government. Corporate person hood has done it.

[herbs814]

If McCain-Feingold stands to limit free speech about politicians and their policies (limit the timing, content, and quantity of politial speech) during the most critical period immediately prior to an election, does that benefit the people? No. It benefits the corporations, whose lobbyists have access to power year-round. We need to be more concerned with asserting our individual rights... and less eager to take away the rights of others, such as corporations.

[herbs814]

Marxism and Darwinism (the belief that accumulating power and control over others is necessary for survival) has led to the dominance of big government and corporations. This is a battle of political philosophy, not just legal tactics. Corporate personhood is just a legal tactic; a symptom of the Marxist-Darwinist delusion. If it wasn't for Santa Clara, they would have just found another way to impose their plan of dominance by marxist-corporatist control.

[MortuusTyrannus]

Yes, stop the government from granting favors to politically connected businesses. Not ban business.

[adsense1]

The constitution gives no rights to groups of people only the individual. You are very mistaken. The supreme court created a person with all the natural rights of a person in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. It is widely known that the at least one judge and court reporter were corrupt. Look it up. No bigger fraud has ever been committed in America than the decision to give a corporation the same rights as a human. It will be fought until overturned.

[XCritonX]

A company is a group of individuals. It (usually) represents their individual best interests and wishes as they pursue what is necessary for life, liberty and happiness. Just as the constitution says "We the People of the United States" (a group) it also outlines other groups for organizational purposes. Individuals can not lose their right to free expression just because they express such right as a group.

[adsense1]

Always get a good debate from the Cato Institute Posts. :-)

[Federalist306]

brilliant