Posted on 09/17/2009 2:09:37 PM PDT by Admiral_Zeon
WASHINGTON -- In her maiden Supreme Court appearance last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a provocative comment that probed the foundations of corporate law.
During arguments in a campaign-finance case, the court's majority conservatives seemed persuaded that corporations have broad First Amendment rights and that recent precedents upholding limits on corporate political spending should be overruled.
But Justice Sotomayor suggested the majority might have it all wrong -- and that instead the court should reconsider the 19th century rulings that first afforded corporations the same rights flesh-and-blood people have.
Judges "created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons," she said. "There could be an argument made that that was the court's error to start with...[imbuing] a creature of state law with human characteristics."
After a confirmation process that revealed little of her legal philosophy, the remark offered an early hint of the direction Justice Sotomayor might want to take the court.
"Progressives who think that corporations already have an unduly large influence on policy in the United States have to feel reassured that this was one of [her] first questions," said Douglas Kendall, president of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
A corporation is a collection of employees and investors.
Corporations may decide to speak collectively for its interest and back those that support its interest, and that should be a right (free speech and all).
Are labor unions bound by the campaign finance law, too? I don't know. But I don't see anyone on the left going to argue labor unions should be muzzled by those same laws that bind corporations. I do know there should be no limits on who wants to spend what during a campaign. None.
Regarding corporations, if the shareholders don't agree with what the corporation is doing, then the shareholders can fire the leadership.
“Many corporations say things on behalf of shareholder's interest they might not necessarily believe. . .” is a dangerous thing. If they say/do such things, if a corporate spokesman or executive speaks wrongly about the performance of the corporation, they can (and many do) go to jail.
No corporation executive or spokesman is forced to say anything they disagree with. . .they choose to say “My product is best,” or even say such-and-such law (or politician) is bad for the industry. If they don't believe that, then they can quit.
Corporations have PACs to look out for their interests and that is a good thing. Just who do you think are the experts in the market or who would speak on behalf of the corporation? Congress? No way, as those idiots only know what they are told by their ivy-league know-everythings (about the age of 25). It is the corporations that have the experts, engineers, program managers, strategic thinkers in the market area. These guys engage congress to make them understand the issues.
Executives of corporations are not forced to join a PAC, not are they forced to contribute. Major corporations have no time to chase down all the execs that don't contribute. I corporation I work for has about a 15% PAC contribution rate. That's all, and we are pretty standard in the industry.
Like unions?
Ah, some collections of people are more equal than others.
Oh no, she’s a complete kook. Holy crap. She must be totally embarrassing to work with. It’s almost funny. Hey, if we are going to have a liberal on the court, might as well be a total nut job.
You should really go read what the conservative’s arguments were in regards to Soto’s ridiculous assertions. It was compelling. Most ‘corporations’ are not big conglomerates. They are your local salon or dry cleaner. One person. She was way out of her league that day and it showed big time. I listened to some of it on CSPAN late one night. Obama’s gov. lawyer was a real idiot too. Of course, when asked about the undue influence of unions...Soto and Obama’s minion lawyer didn’t want to limit their ‘free speech’.
This woman is to the left of Ginsberg and a dangerous fool. So was Obama’s lawyer(can’t remember her name right now.
Thank pro choice Graham for this
I’d say it’s less likely. We can assume that Soto is crazy based on a handful of her statements, and the fact that a bunch of Obama’s appointees are crazy, but it’s fairly reasonable to take a look at whether Corporations should be considered people. Maybe she thinks that you’ve gotta be pretty special (like a person) to be considered a person under the law.
Sotomoron is very qualified...to provide advice in the Bronx office of ACORN. Were she a white woman, she would never have even been appointed to Traffic Court judge. I am confident her colleagues know this, and have the proper contempt for her as a result.
Of course if we follow her logic, then Unions must be stripped of their congruent status as well. After all, as a union has employee members, a corporation has shareholder. All these people are individuals. Deny one their rights and you deny all.
corporations are not individuals and cannot have rights.
we can peacably assemble and petition our government as groups, but cannot claim individual rights as a collective...
flame away.
t
I agree, and I’m not a legal expert, but I don’t want any corporation that may be based in the United States but controlled by foreign shareholders to have any say in our elections, money or otherwise. We have too many of our sons and daughters who have bled and died for this nation to give away our rights. I am really surprised that ANYONE on our board would agree to that!
There it is.
What about all non-profit organizations, .orgs and such, labor unions, etc.
The only two logical choices are for all groups to have 1st amendment rights, or none, otherwise, government is just cherry-picking the groups that support them.
Now, every organization has influence, even if they are barred from technically, directly influencing politicians, as they can communicate to their members how legislation will affect them, and the members can directly contact their legislators. It’s a practical impossibility to start policing every member of every group, so the effects are there no matter what.
And, if there are a large number of Americans working for a company that would be harmed by certain legislation, well, it’s a good thing that the company can advise Congress that it will adversely affect them and cause many Americans to lose their job.
It’s just when a group gets significant legislative influence but uses it to gain legislation that actually hurts the country more than it helps, that’s when we question the power of the group.
But the first line of defense the Constitution provides in such situations is simple; everyone else not in offending group needs to get off the couch and exert some of their own influence legislatively. Of course, this is finally starting to happen over the last few months, thank God.
Does that not sum things up ?
I know I might get flamed but I would support no corporate PACs or any other bundles as long as individuals can donate what they like (maybe a limit much higher than now) ONLY IF unions are also thus limited. If people want to donate do so without any strings attached when doing so as an individual. Limits may be placed but that only so shell donors the likes of Obama's and Hillary's last cycle don't easily thrive. And instant online accounting of who gave to whom, when and how much.
But certainly none of this "no ads 60 days before an election" crap. And also strict laws that don't allow the Dem media to pick and choose ads that they will air.
I couldn't disagree more.
WAIT, WAIT, don’t rush to judgment.
1913 — Delaware Supreme Court — Made USofA into a Corporation and therefore into a “person” via this law. Changed us from a Constitutional form of Government.
IF this 1913 law is examined and changed/abolished, then WE ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL NATION ONCE AGAIN!
It will change the entire playing field and Constitutionalists will regain status in the Federal Government.
Would the same apply to unions, or activist groups? Would it apply to unincorporated businesses? To churches? To the ACLU? To La Raza?
Individuals who represent corporations are not "artificial persons". They can say what they want representing whatever they want.
What are corporation but a means for the people who own them to express their intent together. They may not be a flesh and blood person but they are a proxy for many flesh and blood people.
Socialists look for any legal toehold no matter how far fetched to find a way to deprive people of their property rights.
I would say not really. Most corporations are small businesses with a net worth of less than 20 million. Most individuals are the same.
In the mega bucks world, we have Gates, Brin, Paige, Buffett, etc. all with over 20 billion, vs. all but the Fortune top 200 worth over 20 billion.
Thank you, I wrote that. There's a lot more like it at the same source.
It is a question worth pondering.
Why should a corporation be treated as an individual?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.