In 1907 Congress passed a law that prohibited corporations and banks from contributing money to federal campaigns. Teddy Roosevelt, who made a name for himself as America's Trust Buster (breaking up Standard Oil), supported the legislation because of the amount of power corporations had over elections and the political process.
Put simply, corporations were buying and corrupting our state and federal governments.
Later, in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech (but the SC did uphold a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions).
It appears that this all went out the door with today's Supreme Court decision.
In a 5-4 decision the majority said that the government has no business regulating or limiting political speech by putting limits on corporate contributions. Specifically, since corporations use money to voice their opinion, and are considered protected persons, the Supreme Court said that the state could not violate their First Amendment rights (free speech).
In practical terms, corporations can now spend what they want on political campaigns.
One of the issues that should be addressed (hopefully) after this decision is whether corporations should be accorded the same protections as living, breathing human beings in America. Consider the following:
More importantly, people often forget that corporations gained "personhood" status because of the functional equivalent of a typo in 1886. Consider this ...
In the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (1886) decision, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are entitled to 14th Amendment protections when it came to taxes (yes, I've deliberately oversimplified the primary issue involved here). They had lost their initial court effort in California's Superior Court. This is where it gets really fun.
The railroad company used the Jurisdiction and Removal Act of 1875 - which was designed to help blacks avoid hostile southern state courts in their pursuit of justice - to appeal their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the railroad's favor. Their decision said nothing about corporate "personhood" (it focused on the tax claim). Then a court reporter - not a SC Justice - wrote a case summary of the decision in the headnotes that would literally change the content of the decision.
In the summary the reporter wrote that corporations enjoy the same rights under the 14th amendment (equal protection, 1868) as does a natural person. The U.S. Supreme Court didn't issue this interpretation. A court reporter did!
And just like that - because of the functional equivalent of a typo - corporations were enshrined with the same 14th amendment protections as living and breathing people. Now, because of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito, they can spend as much as they want ... because they're people too.
- Mark
Put simply, corporations were buying and corrupting our state and federal governments.
Later, in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech (but the SC did uphold a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions).
It appears that this all went out the door with today's Supreme Court decision.
In a 5-4 decision the majority said that the government has no business regulating or limiting political speech by putting limits on corporate contributions. Specifically, since corporations use money to voice their opinion, and are considered protected persons, the Supreme Court said that the state could not violate their First Amendment rights (free speech).
In practical terms, corporations can now spend what they want on political campaigns.
One of the issues that should be addressed (hopefully) after this decision is whether corporations should be accorded the same protections as living, breathing human beings in America. Consider the following:
1. Corporations have the financial resources to hide behind propriety rights, indefinitely.
2. Corporations can hide behind different bankrutpcy laws.
3. Corporations can be foreign owned.
More importantly, people often forget that corporations gained "personhood" status because of the functional equivalent of a typo in 1886. Consider this ...
In the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (1886) decision, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are entitled to 14th Amendment protections when it came to taxes (yes, I've deliberately oversimplified the primary issue involved here). They had lost their initial court effort in California's Superior Court. This is where it gets really fun.
The railroad company used the Jurisdiction and Removal Act of 1875 - which was designed to help blacks avoid hostile southern state courts in their pursuit of justice - to appeal their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the railroad's favor. Their decision said nothing about corporate "personhood" (it focused on the tax claim). Then a court reporter - not a SC Justice - wrote a case summary of the decision in the headnotes that would literally change the content of the decision.
In the summary the reporter wrote that corporations enjoy the same rights under the 14th amendment (equal protection, 1868) as does a natural person. The U.S. Supreme Court didn't issue this interpretation. A court reporter did!
And just like that - because of the functional equivalent of a typo - corporations were enshrined with the same 14th amendment protections as living and breathing people. Now, because of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito, they can spend as much as they want ... because they're people too.
- Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment