Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Source: Wall Street Journal

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.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125314088285517643.html

dbackjon wrote:Source: Wall Street Journal

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.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125314088285517643.html

interesting...

I may surprise some here, and while I have mixed emotions, I tend to agree with her

OL FU wrote:I may surprise some here, and while I have mixed emotions, I tend to agree with her

Corporations are soulless, no doubt!

As a Constitutional libertarian who fears agglomerations of power, and as a T Rex Progressive who seeks transparency and accountability, I don't think I would mind seeing a reduction in the political power of corporations, IF it were balanced with a concomitant reduction in the political power of unions. I would cheer the empowerment of the individual at the expense of the corporation, as I would cheer the empowerment of the individual and the consumer over the labor unions.

But what would be the unexamined consequences?

native wrote:

OL FU wrote:I may surprise some here, and while I have mixed emotions, I tend to agree with her

Corporations are soulless, no doubt!

As a Constitutional libertarian who fears agglomerations of power, and as a T Rex Progressive who seeks transparency and accountability, I don't think I would mind seeing a reduction in the political power of corporations, IF it were balanced with a concomitant reduction in the political power of unions. I would cheer the empowerment of the individual at the expense of the corporation, as I would cheer the empowerment of the individual and the consumer over the labor unions.

But what would be the unexamined consequences?

Haven't really thought it through but corporations and unions obvioulsy have "rights" (term loosely used) but constitutional rights would seem to be individual rights. Even the right to assemble is the collective rights of specific individuals is it not?.

OL FU wrote:

native wrote:
Corporations are soulless, no doubt!

As a Constitutional libertarian who fears agglomerations of power, and as a T Rex Progressive who seeks transparency and accountability, I don't think I would mind seeing a reduction in the political power of corporations, IF it were balanced with a concomitant reduction in the political power of unions. I would cheer the empowerment of the individual at the expense of the corporation, as I would cheer the empowerment of the individual and the consumer over the labor unions.

But what would be the unexamined consequences?

Haven't really thought it through but corporations and unions obvioulsy have "rights" (term loosely used) but constitutional rights would seem to be individual rights. Even the right to assemble is the collective rights of specific individuals is it not?.

I could be mistaken, but I think the Constitution has protections for corporations as well as individuals. Hopefully our legal scholars will join in on this thread.

native wrote:

OL FU wrote:
Haven't really thought it through but corporations and unions obvioulsy have "rights" (term loosely used) but constitutional rights would seem to be individual rights. Even the right to assemble is the collective rights of specific individuals is it not?.

I could be mistaken, but I think the Constitution has protections for corporations as well as individuals. Hopefully our legal scholars will join in on this thread.

Calling Joltin' Joe I wonder if those weren't created rights similar to those that most conservatives deplore. Certainly corporations are a collection of individuals, but that collection is generally very uninvolved or flat out disengaged except for the share price.

If the principle that corporations are legal "persons" were ever undermined -- to say nothing of "newer " entities like LPs and LLCs -- it would have profound implications for contract law as well as general business law. I don't read too much into it. Sotomayor was probably intending to be context-specific for the corporate free speech rights implicated by McCain-Feingold -- a crappy law, BTW.

Ivytalk wrote:If the principle that corporations are legal "persons" were ever undermined -- to say nothing of "newer " entities like LPs and LLCs -- it would have profound implications for contract law as well as general business law. I don't read too much into it. Sotomayor was probably intending to be context-specific for the corporate free speech rights implicated by McCain-Feingold -- a crappy law, BTW.

Yes I agree with you and if that is what Tman was speaking to I agree with him. But do you think that extends to corporations political speech rights, etc. I don't know maybe it should. Protection to do business as an individual would is imperative. But it seems that there are differences in entities and individuals when speaking to the right to speech, assembley, etc. Maybe I am missing the point

OL FU wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:If the principle that corporations are legal "persons" were ever undermined -- to say nothing of "newer " entities like LPs and LLCs -- it would have profound implications for contract law as well as general business law. I don't read too much into it. Sotomayor was probably intending to be context-specific for the corporate free speech rights implicated by McCain-Feingold -- a crappy law, BTW.

Yes I agree with you and if that is what Tman was speaking to I agree with him. But do you think that extends to corporations political speech rights, etc. I don't know maybe it should. Protection to do business as an individual would is imperative. But it seems that there are differences in entities and individuals when speaking to the right to speech, assembley, etc. Maybe I am missing the point

The Court will revisit that very issue in this case. My position has always been clear on political speech: no restrictions whatsoever, regardless of the nature of the "speaker," but full disclosure of all donors.

Ivytalk wrote:If the principle that corporations are legal "persons" were ever undermined -- to say nothing of "newer " entities like LPs and LLCs -- it would have profound implications for contract law as well as general business law. I don't read too much into it. Sotomayor was probably intending to be context-specific for the corporate free speech rights implicated by McCain-Feingold -- a crappy law, BTW.

Should corporations have "personhood" and equal protection under the 14th amendment, as implied by Santa Clara vs Union Pacific?

When I read the thread title I just knew it would be some kind of gender issue, but this I like. Go Sotomayor!

dbackjon wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:If the principle that corporations are legal "persons" were ever undermined -- to say nothing of "newer " entities like LPs and LLCs -- it would have profound implications for contract law as well as general business law. I don't read too much into it. Sotomayor was probably intending to be context-specific for the corporate free speech rights implicated by McCain-Feingold -- a crappy law, BTW.

Should corporations have "personhood" and equal protection under the 14th amendment, as implied by Santa Clara vs Union Pacific?

Sure! And they should have the right to get married as well! No mere civil unions for corporations!

What's that you say? Corporations already get married? They "merge"?

Never mind!

Ivytalk wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Should corporations have "personhood" and equal protection under the 14th amendment, as implied by Santa Clara vs Union Pacific?

Sure! And they should have the right to get married as well! No mere civil unions for corporations!

What's that you say? Corporations already get married? They "merge"?

Never mind!

Or to use my favorite word - they amalgamate.

What a weird word. Amalgamate. Crazy lawyers.

Ivytalk wrote: ...My position has always been clear on political speech: no restrictions whatsoever, regardless of the nature of the "speaker," but full disclosure of all donors.

Ditto!!!

Ivytalk wrote:

OL FU wrote:
Yes I agree with you and if that is what Tman was speaking to I agree with him. But do you think that extends to corporations political speech rights, etc. I don't know maybe it should. Protection to do business as an individual would is imperative. But it seems that there are differences in entities and individuals when speaking to the right to speech, assembley, etc. Maybe I am missing the point

The Court will revisit that very issue in this case. My position has always been clear on political speech: no restrictions whatsoever, regardless of the nature of the "speaker," but full disclosure of all donors.

From a pure political standpoint, I tend to agree with you. But was that the intent of the constitution. Honestly I don't know. But I do ask

I have serious problems with "corporate personhood" especially as has derived from Santa Clara... the notion that a corporate entity is entitled to the same free speech rights that citizens are entitled to is absurd. Corporate speech is protected but it is another class of speech entirely. If a corporation is entitled to unfettered political speech as a "person" then why are they also not entitled to a vote? (I'm mostly arguing from a "logical extension" point of view)

I too dislike McCain-Feingold because, and believe me when I say this - it's useless and so full of loopholes as to have been rendered meaningless within 2 years of its passing. Moreover, it doesn't really do what it sets out to do, which is limit corporate influence in politics. it just shifted how we do it.

Here's the big thing - the courts could kill corporate person-hood, and I think that would be a good thing, but if the goal is to "limit corporate influence in politics" fuggetaboutit. one thing i remind people of every day - every american is part of dozens of "special interests" and you will never be able to bar individuals with shared interests (say a corporate board, or the partners of a law firm) from finding a candidate who supports their agenda and backing their campaign.

So if corporations are no longer a person does that mean they no longer have to pay taxes?