It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Alito told roughly 1,500 people at a Federalist Society dinner this week that the First Amendment protects political speech, whether from an individual or a corporation. His comments to the overwhelmingly conservative and Republican crowd were part of his broader analysis of arguments put forth by the Obama administration in recent years that Alito said would curtail individual freedoms in favor of stronger federal power.
"The question is whether speech that goes to the very heart of government should be limited to certain preferred corporations; namely, media corporations," he said. "Surely the idea that the First Amendment protects only certain privileged voices should be disturbing to anybody who believes in free speech."
At President Barack Obama's State of the Union address soon after the court's ruling in January 2010, the president said the court "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections."
Originally posted by Asktheanimals
This is a prime example of a bad court decision based on a few horrible laws. Under Reagan the FCC became a heavily politicized organization that destroyed older prohibitions against cross-media ownership whereby people couldn't own both tv stations and newspapers. This is when people like Rupert Murdoch got their start buying up every last source of news available. Investigative journalism took it's last blow with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which was touted as promoting "competition" ::cough::
That was the law that killed radio allowing Clearchannel to buy up all the radio stations and it wasn't long before creative music went by the wayside in favor of pop-flavored garbage.
Before 1980 there were over 500 different owners of tv and print media, today it's down to 5 which all more or less parrot the same story lines albeit with a choice of "flavors" (left or right).
So, based on the fact that only a few people control the mass media Citizens United gets a free pass to shovel money to any candidate they choose. I'm sure that will enhance diversity and freedom of choice.
The FCC used to issue licenses to serve the public interest.
No longer are there set limits on advertising nor is there a mandate to require editorial rebuttals or even issue spots for community programming.
There even was competition between newswire services but that's no longer since Reuters went under.
Without the internet the US and Europe would be living under overt fascism I have little doubt.
Good thread Heff - this is important stuff indeed.edit on 17-11-2012 by Asktheanimals because: corrections
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. The nonprofit group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA").[2] In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that portions of BCRA §203 violated the First Amendment.
The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a July 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The lower court held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][3] The Supreme Court reversed, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from spending on "electioneering communications".[2]
The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[4] The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.[5]
The Supreme Court has struck down a Montana ban on corporate political money, ruling 5 to 4 that the controversial 2010 Citizens United ruling applies to state and local elections.
The court broke in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock along the same lines as in the original Citizens United case, when the court ruled that corporate money is speech and thus corporations can spend unlimited amounts on elections.
“The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law,” the majority wrote. “There can be no serious doubt that it does.”
No arguments were heard; it was a summary reversal.
“To the extent that there was any doubt from the original Citizens United decision broadly applies to state and local laws, that doubt is now gone,” said Marc Elias, a Democratic campaign lawyer. “To whatever extent that door was open a crack, that door is now closed.”
A 1912 Montana law barred direct corporate contributions to political parties and candidates — a response to the election interference of “copper kings.” Mark Twain wrote of one such mining giant in 1907, Sen. William Clark (D), “He is said to have bought legislatures and judges as other men buy food and raiment. By his example he has so excused and so sweetened corruption that in Montana it no longer has an offensive smell.”
Originally posted by Indigo5
A corporation is a legal entity specifically constructed and designed for a profit motive. It is NOT "people"....people invest thier money in a legal construct (corporation) precisely becuase it is a corporation/legal construct with a pure profit motive vs. a "person". That legal construct exists for the exact purpose to differentiate itself from people....liability and profit ad nuaseum.
Aside from that fundemental flaw...he does not differentiate money from speech. In a democracy where they are one in the same, the poor have no voice and the wealthy have loudspeakers...money is not speech.
Originally posted by jimmyx
i think there is a very real answer to this... a corporation's individual humans have speech, as per the constitution. a corporation is a written set of rules and regulations for the operation of a business. the corporation is not human, therefore it is not protected by the bill of rights. this is why i regard alito and the rest that ruled in favor of citizens united as not having sound judicial standing, and should be impeached from the court.
Originally posted by blackthorne
tell me then, who is going to prison for the deaths of 11 oil workers from the bp accident two years ago?
Originally posted by Mr Tranny
Originally posted by jimmyx
i think there is a very real answer to this... a corporation's individual humans have speech, as per the constitution. a corporation is a written set of rules and regulations for the operation of a business. the corporation is not human, therefore it is not protected by the bill of rights. this is why i regard alito and the rest that ruled in favor of citizens united as not having sound judicial standing, and should be impeached from the court.
A set of rules and regulations that make no mention of the ability to speak, or lack there of.
News corporations like CNN follow that same set of rules and regulations for running a business. Do they have no right to speak? Do they have no right to use a print press?
Originally posted by Seiko
When I see a corporation arrested and jailed I might change my mind. Yes to be a citizen of a country you must be protected, but also be prosecuted under the laws fairly. I do not see this on a corporate scale, so I conclude that they are not people.
Corporations also can not be registered to, or participate in an election. They can buy ads, they can sway public opinion, they can flat out lie, but they can not cast a vote in a corporate name.
Corporations are not born, nor do they die, they do not think, they do not posses the cerebral responses as specified by the court to possess " life".
This list could go on and on.
Originally posted by Seiko
When I see a corporation arrested and jailed I might change my mind. Yes to be a citizen of a country you must be protected, but also be prosecuted under the laws fairly. I do not see this on a corporate scale, so I conclude that they are not people.