Hayward on Citizens United

Prof. Allison Hayward of George Mason Law School and the Center for Competitive Politics discusses the Supreme Court's upcoming rehearing in Citizens United v. FEC. She also frightens deer and pretends to play bad violin. A brief filed on behalf of a group of campaign finance scholars can be found at http://www.scribd.com/full/17878231?access_key=key-2hosg3qr8mrmjjfsbi8j

Category:

Education

Tags:

• law
• constitutional law
• citizens united
• allison hayward
• fec
• campaign finance

[christine1458]

terrible video.

[allisonhayward]

... because...?

[allisonhayward]

What a compliment! Thanks!!

[qi4u]

i am under the impression that corporations are asking for and receiving civil rights in many cases.

if you read the santa clara co v southern pacific rr case you will see why this is controversial, as it is counter the courts ruling in that case, yet the case is sited as precedence for granting such rights to corporations

i do not more republicans elected, correct, but i see corporations as just as bad as right-wingers. corporations have not been granted voting rights, this case a way around t

[zepper72]

They already have them. Police can't barge into corporate headquarters and go through everything without a warrant. Corporations are free to hire armed guards for protection. And executives in court can exercise Fifth Amendment rights.

Just admit it, you want to deny the First to them because you're afraid it might get more Republicans elected. I'm sure you'd love to shut the unions up too.

[qi4u]

more so than doing what ever business big business is involved in, their purpose is to maximize profits, by law as well as those involved that are good corporate officers have no conscious. They have to be this way in order to do maximize profits at any human expense.

i do not see how protecting corporate free speech protects free speech for living people.

if this is true, shouldn't all human rights and constitutional amendments be extended to corporations?

why is free speech the exception?

[qi4u]

the only candidates that are considered for key offices are vetted by special interests. With billions/trillions at stake, you think they just hope for the best? I don't and that is why i am obsessed with the corporatocracy we have masquerading as a democracy (or republic) which is supposed to be one person, one vote and a government of for and by the people.

the statement "of for and by the people" is exclusive based on the history of special interest using the colonists as their source-cash

[zepper72]

Wanting the Constitution upheld, that sure is naive.

Your obsession with big business is clouding your judgment. Don't vote for politicians taking their money if it bothers you. And support term limits so politicians will be less inclined to become tempted into corruption. But do not mess with the Bill of Rights. I know liberals think the Constitution is a living document but really it isn't.

[qi4u]

Protecting free speech rights for corporations that are intent on replacing our government representation with theirs with lots of money spent on PACs, associations, right-wing think-tanks, campaign financing and lobbyists.

Do we really need to worry about them when they are working so hard to supersede our representation? I think your concern is naive, misguided and counterproductive, because big business uses money directed toward candidates and issues that increase their bottom line

[zepper72]

It's less about corporate rights as much as it is about protecting everyone's else's free speech. By guaranteeing theirs, which they clearly have then the rest of ours are that much safer. I'm thinking more in terms of making political movies, writing books etc. than about contributing money to campaigns, though that's an issue too.

The fascist left would love to shut everyone's voices down but their own and they are not going to be allowed to do it.

[qi4u]

Perhaps someone could explain this, corporations do not have the right to vote, so why is there so much concern about corporate rights as listed in the bill of rights for people, people vulnerable to exploitation by big business?

Did the founders want corporations such as the east india company to have a vote or some other say in political policy? Is that what they risked their lives for? Did they forget to list corporations as persons? did they forget to allow for corporate voting rights?

[qi4u]

corporations have a requirement of operating in the interest of the general public, and when that isn't the case the corporate charter should be revoked, or else what is the meaning of a government of for and by the people? why would such a government charter a corporation to operate at the expense of the people, such as for-profit special interest lobbying suggests?

[qi4u]

The constitution should be used as law. free speech is for every living breathing person and the law is to protect living persons from the tyranny of big business merging with government in the processes of imperialism or corporatism.

government has passed the point of corruption that new officials can solve or stand up too.

corporations are afforded government charters and privileges as well as restrictions different from living persons. As a government of the people charting corporations