Corporations are not people. Democracy is for people.
Use the above link to add your name to a petition for a constitutional amendment to overturn the ruling and reclaim our democracy.
A public corporation has stock holders whose decisions on how its money is spent should have been part of the courts decision.
In 1886, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite, wrote:
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to corporations. We are all of opinion that is does.
This statement just redefined early 1800s decisions that resulted in corporations being deemed "inviolable" and becoming "artificial" persons enjoying both individuality and immortality. So today when we engage with a corporation, what we deal with is legally a person, a very "odd" person, with a focus on profits, limited liability, and sometimes questionable moral sense.
Then the court really confuses the issues. On March 1, 2011, on a 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court found that it could not be assumed the term "personal" could be applied to corporations with regard to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The court found AT&T was not a person (AT&T had over-billed in a Federal E-Rate program and its competitors wanted to see documents from the case) and not entitled to "personal privacy" and assume it could have all the benefits of a corporation.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:
The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations. We trust that AT&T will not take it personally.
Will you sign the petition?
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!
Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us 
4 comments:
The Citizens United did not make it legal for corporations to donate contributions to any candidate. It just said corporations could spend money on their own speech, commenting about candidates. CUIP is a corporation. Before Citizens United, it would have been possible for Congress to pass a law saying CUIP was forbidden to spend any money disseminating its opinion about any candidates for federal office. Citizens United is a good decision that helps groups like CUIP.
Did it discuss the coordination between the corporation and the candidate? If it was shown the content was a direct or similar content provided by the candidate, how would this be handled?
Coordination is strictly prohibited. If it was shown the content was a direct or similar content provided by the candidate, the corporation would be in legal trouble.
Thanks for your input. If my issues are covered and there are penalties, then I agree with you about free speech.
Post a Comment