Citizens United v FEC Part 1 Clements & Amicus Brief

Public Forum recorded Sept 8, 2009 Northampton MA on pending case, upholding restrictions on corporate political campagin expenditures and implications/potential implications for concept of "corporate personhood." Part 1
features Jeffrey Clements, attorney who filed an Amicus brief representing five citizens groups arguing against expanding corporate First Amendment Rights.
FMI at shays2.org

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• shays2
• clements
• citizensunited
• FEC
• corporate
• personhood

[BEreadyJESUSiscoming]

All CORPERATIONS ARE FROM THE PIT OF HELL !! SATANIC ! The only reason for their existence is to hide and misdirect the evil they do. I'm sure you know "The United States" is a corperation by contract law. You are chattel; because of your BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

[laurenmichellekinsey]

"This case has set a record for Amicus Briefs." I didn't realize that. Very revealing. Thank you for the amazing work you're doing to work toward a constitutional amendment.

[jamal4]

haha you're a ridiculous terrorist.

[zepper72]

So a group has constitutional rights even if they're not mentioned as long as they aren't making a profit and their influence is waning? Ok gotcha, glad you cleared that up otherwise I'd think you were playing favorites for your preferred speakers...

It seems the left, which you must be a part of believe you can change the rules of the game to suit your beliefs at any given moment however thankfully the USSC begs to differ. The Constitution is not a living document.

And yes MSNBC is vile.

[jamal4]

interesting point about corps as a group of people promoting interests. no need to get touchy, we're just having a discussion. When words like "vile" get into your political vocabulary, it's time to pump the breaks. For NBC, there is Fox news; the talking heads on either network should never be taken seriously. And unions are not comparable to corporations. Unions do not seek profit, and membership has been steadily declining for the past several decades, so their influence is waning anyway.

[zepper72]

Btw who are we to judge whether corporations love the country or not if we're not even allowed to hear from them? I certainly don't think corporate NBC does with the hatred dished out on MSNBC but they do have a right to their opinions, as vile as they are.

You ignore unions but they're not mentioned either, should they also be denied the right to speak out on political issues?

[zepper72]

They're not mentioned so their rights can be denied? There are so many holes in that argument I wouldn't know where to begin. Contrary to your assumptions a corporation is not a thing but a group of organized people with interests and since this is a free country they have a right to promote those interests.

[jamal4]

In reference to our differences, I implied the invocation of the classic distinction between strict and loose construction. Corporations are not mentioned in the constitution, but while you take that to mean that the government cannot limit them, i take it to mean that they do not have first amendment rights. But the difference goes beyond the words of the constitution: as Mr. Clements has said, a corporation is not a person. It doesn't breathe; it doesn't love this country like you and I do.

[zepper72]

Well maybe someone on the other side will explain what differs in our interpretations? All I see is a First Amendment that says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.

It doesn't say except for corporations or non-profit groups whose political views we don't agree with. On the other hand unions are free to do whatever they please. I guess on the left's farm some animals are more equal than others.

[jamal4]

1) We're at an impasse. You and I differ in our interpretations of the constitution, so all I can say to that is agree to disagree.

2) The Supreme Court is not meant to write laws, but to establish legal precedents. Precedent must sometimes be broken in order to promote change, as in Brown v Board, but this decision depends on text without considering practical implications. The fact is, you and I don't have to money to run political ads, but corporations do.