Corporations, unions, now allowed to spend more to purchase candidates and elections

[Zehava]

Since corporations are legally "persons" surely they are limited to the same contributions as myself, right?* After all we are both people.

The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law Brochure






* Yes that is sarcasm.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by 256 colors

There is more info here: Corporate Personhood-Demeaning Our Bill of Rights - Reclaim Democracy.org

A google search will lead you to more groups that are working to change this policy. I was surprised to learn that the ACLU supports corporate personhood.

It's not clear to me that the ACLU supports corporate personhood. The "seems consistent" phrase in this excerpt from the Sign-on Letter to ACLU on Corporate Personhood seems like thin evidence, since as they acknowledge the headquarters may not agree.

We are writing to you, the leaders of the ACLU, in the hope that you will rethink your general support of corporate free speech, as evidenced by the ACLU of Northern California's amicus brief in Kasky v. Nike [the names reverses on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court]. Though we know the state chapters may take positions without the approval of headquarters, their position seems consistent with overall ACLU position.

[256 colors]

Thanks vm. I only did a cursory google search and didn't investigate.

[viscousmemories]

I didn't dig too deep either so I'm not discounting the possibility, I guess I'm just hoping they don't.

[D. Scarlatti]

I don't believe the Bill of Rights is limited to protecting the privileges of only U.S. citizens. As for political contributions from foreign nationals, they are allowed from, for example, Green Card-holders, although many candidates won't accept them.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by yguy

It pretty much is, in any election above the municipal level. Even if a candidate is so adorable that all the media that serve his constituents are in the tank for him, so that he doesn't have to buy space or time, somebody pays for it regardless.

Bit late and already answered, I know, but still.

The fact that money is pragmatically necessary to spread your free speech to a sufficient portion of people to, say, win and election does not make money speech. Practical concerns, as opposed to purely philosophical or theoretical ones, are very important to consider, of course. How those concerns are handled depends on whether you think they are good, neutral, or bad, though. The ruling seems to approach the issue as neutral or possibly good, whereas I view it as bad, hence my disagreement with the ruling. I am not under the illusion that such things will change in the foreseeable future, but a more appropriate response to this reality would be steps taken to mitigate its impact on elections, not exacerbate them.

The bottom line is still that this is not a good enough argument for classifying money as speech or providing it the same protections. I would like to hear any other lines of reasoning you have.

[The Lone Ranger]

I think it should be like NASCAR.

Each of our Congress-critters should be required to wear a big, easily-legible corporate logo, showing which corporation(s) own him/her.


"The House recognizes the representative from R. J. Reynolds ..."

***

Maybe this will inspire people to demand a constitutional amendment that would revoke the silly notion that a corporation is a person? I mean, by golly, if a corporation enjoys the benefits of legally being a "person," then why the heck don't they have to shoulder many of the responsibilities that an actual citizen must shoulder?

Not that I expect a bill to revoke corporate personhood would ever get through either house of Congress, but I can dream, can't I?


Heck, I like the idea of restricting a corporation to spending no more on campaigns than an actual person can. That sounds like an excellent idea to me. Again, it's not so much that the notion of corporate personhood is abhorrent as is the fact that corporations enjoy many of the benefits of "personhood" without having to shoulder very many of the responsibilities. That hardly seems fair.

[LadyShea]

I just read a story today about a bunch of big-time CEOs writing to Congress asking for public campaign funding instead of bothering them all the time.

[erimir]

I notice that nobody pointed out that the title calls them coprorations.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Sauron

I'll defer to our resident lawyers, but here is my understanding:

The US Bill of Rights enumerates rights enjoyed by our citizens. Last time I checked, foreign nationals - by definition - are not our citizens.

There has been a precedent to extend such rights to foreign nationals, but it is only a precedent, an extension of state courtesy by the USA. It makes for good press, and obviously we hope our own citizens abroad are afforded similar rights wherever they reside. And as a nation that generally encourages immigration, granting such privileges usually provides a favorable contrast for the foreign national to consider.

But foreign nationals do not possess Constitutional guarantees such as free speech, freedom of assembly, etc. as a *right*. They are generally granted as a privilege. For that matter, legal residency is not a right; it is a privilege.

None of which matters to my example of corporations, however. A foreign national *can* vote -- either in his home country, or here if he becomes naturalized. A corporation can never vote. That is the result of being an artificial entity (in point of fact, corporate personhood didn't even exist until the latter half of the 1800s).

Actually, I believe a series of diplomatic 'understandings' (i.e., extorted international agreements) which protect US military personnel stationed at US bases from prosecution of any crime they commit in the host nation. This allows willful violation of local laws (and decency, in many cases) where American perpetrators go scot-free. Chalmers Johnson's Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire describes the situation in Okinawa and extrapolates the situation empire-wide for the reader.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I just read a story today about a bunch of big-time CEOs writing to Congress asking for public campaign funding instead of bothering them all the time.

So some corporate thug hired to a government job can determine how much we are going to pay in taxes to elect their running dogs?

I think not.

I say depersonalize corporations, first, and then allow only voting citizens to to make limited donations to political campaigns, candidates or issues....say up to $100 a maximum of the equivalent to a year's wages at the official minimum wage. Make it a tax credit. Changeable only by an approval majority vote of the voting public.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

So some corporate thug hired to a government job can determine how much we are going to pay in taxes to elect their running dogs?

How would that work, exactly? Typically, increased public campaign funding is thought to reduce the influence that corporate money has over elections. I'm interested to hear how your hypothetical "corporate thug" would make that work in reverse, though.

[LadyShea]

Story

They sent the letter through Fair Elections Now, a coalition of good-government groups who hope the Supreme Court ruling will lead Congress to pass public campaign financing legislation they have long been seeking. Others supporting public financing include former campaign strategists for President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush.

A Senate proposal would fund campaigns with a fee on businesses that get $10 million or more in government contracts. The House would finance it with revenue from auctioning off the television broadcast spectrum, which was opened when the country switched to digital broadcasting. Spectrums are the airwaves used by the government, television and radio broadcasters and cell phone companies, among others.

[godfry n. glad]

We have 'publicly funded elections' at the municipal level here and the first election out, two candidates were caught scamming the public by fucking with the qualification procedures....basically forging signatures. I am distinctly NOT impressed.

A bigger problem in the long run is that the 'civil servants' who run the program are political appointees. It becomes the same effective situation as has come to pass with federal regulation commissions, the policy makers and the administrators who administer it are right out of the very industry which they are charged with regulating.

I still think the idea should be to limit the maximum amount any given citizen can donate to political candidates or initiatives. And enforce it.

I like the idea of returning broadcast television to the public, but what kind of reception will it get? It sounds like just another platform for corporate advertising.

Remember 'commercial-free pay television'? Where the fuck did that go?

[California Tanker]

if a corporation enjoys the benefits of legally being a "person," then why the heck don't they have to shoulder many of the responsibilities that an actual citizen must shoulder?

They do enjoy many of the benefits, but also many of the liabilities. Pretty much our entire way of life focuses around the corporation as a legal individual, from the ability to file taxes as an employer to the fact that you can sue a corporation for contract breach or negligence. If the corporation has no legal standing as itself apart, it's not going to be able to get summonsed to court. The alternative is to sue the individual in charge, which leads to its own sets of problems and invalidates the whole point of getting incorporated to encourage business. (Now you're going to go make me drag our my old notes from my Corporate Law classes).

Foreign nationals still have citizenship in their home country, and can influence the elections there; thus one can conclude that they are entitled to free speech here Corporations have no votes anywhere. They also don't perform jury duty, aren't eligible for the draft, and so on. Most importantly they are an institution established for the sole purpose of delivering profits to their shareholders

Even that isn't necessarily the case. Do Saudi women have a vote in any elections anywhere? If they do now, they didn't a few years ago, so should that have been taken into account? Bear in mind that this case covers all manner of incorporated institutions, including not-for-profits, unions, and other such 'non-person organisations'. And in some places, such organisations -do- have a vote. For example, the National University of Ireland (My alma mater) and Dublin University, each legal corporations (though not businesses in the normal sense) can each place three Senators into the upper house of the Irish legislature. That's 10% of the Senate coming from 'fictional legal entitities' right there.

NTM

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

They do enjoy many of the benefits, but also many of the liabilities.

That was not the question.

The question was about responsibilities. Not liabilities.

Pretty much our entire way of life focuses around the corporation as a legal individual, from the ability to file taxes as an employer to the fact that you can sue a corporation for contract breach or negligence.

Our entire way of life? Exaggerate much, do you?

Tort law is not entirely (or even mostly) dedicated to corporations. Interactions between individuals (or even partnerships) comprise a large chunk of that law. Not all businesses are corporations, either.

What's more, the ability to sue didn't magically appear in 1886 when the SC commented on corporate personhood. It existed before that time. Incorporation did not create it.

If the corporation has no legal standing as itself apart, it's not going to be able to get summonsed to court.

Which is irrelevant, because under the hypothetical situation of abolished corporate personhood, the company owners and/or BoD can be summoned instead -- as well as being fined, and levied, and even bankrupted. It was, in fact, that distasteful scenario that provided some of the impetus to create the legal innovation of corporate personhood.

You act as if this is somehow the only way that business can be conducted. The UK provides an entirely different example. A case in point: back in 1995, a rogue securities trader in Singapore by the name of Nick Leeson caused the collapse of Barings Bank in the UK in 1995. Barings had been around since before the American War for Independence. They had provided financing to Britain during the Napoleonic Wars. Yes this one rogue trader took down the entire bank.

I remember watching one of the board of Barings Bank being interviewed on CBS 60 Minutes right after it happened. Mike Wallace was explaining the difference in the USA vs. UK legal system of Ltd. vs corporations, and noting how an American bankrtupcy would allow the personal assets of a corporation's executives to be shielded. But in the UK the courts were able to go after not just the bank's assets, but the personal assets of the executives and board of directors. The discussion with the executive went something like this:

Wallace: the bankruptcy courts have much more reach in the UK under your system of business laws.

Barings exec: yes they do.

Wallace: Still, they couldn't have been all that bad, could they? That looks like a rather nice suit you have, though. And what about the cufflinks? They look rather expensive.

Barings exec: The court allowed me to keep personal clothing. The cufflinks are borrowed for the occasion [the television interview].

I suspect that if the US laws were changed to mirror the UK laws, we would have seen far fewer mortgage banks making risky gambles and fewer Enrons, Tycos, and WorldComs as well. When executives realize that they cannot shelter their personal assets in case of company failure, they're suddenly invested in a new and very meaningful way in the success of their corporation. The same way, in fact, that a single proprietorship business owner is invested in his/her business, and the same way that an employee is invested in the employer's business.

The alternative is to sue the individual in charge, which leads to its own sets of problems and invalidates the whole point of getting incorporated to encourage business.

The point of incorporation was not to encourage business. It was, in fact, a legal innovation to provide extra benefits for business while shielding business owners from legal liability.

(Now you're going to go make me drag our my old notes from my Corporate Law classes).

I suggest you do. So far, you've entirely screwed the pooch on the historical reasons why incorporation came about in the USA.

[California Tanker]

I'm going to use British terminology here as that's what I was taught.

Originally Posted by Sauron

Our entire way of life? Exaggerate much, do you?

Not really. a fundamental principle of our economy is based on the ability of fictional persons to undertake various actions. At the most fundamental level, contract. A fictional legal person may enter into a contract with another (real or fictional) to buy goods or services off another. It may enter into contract with a real person to hire them as an employee. There is very little that you do on a daily basis which does not rely on an interaction with a fictional legal person.

Tort law is not entirely (or even mostly) dedicated to corporations. Interactions between individuals (or even partnerships) comprise a large chunk of that law. Not all businesses are corporations, either.

To this end, we're not even talking about businesses exclusively, but any fictional legal entity from Coca Cola through the RSPCA. But as you point out, tort laws were not initially envisioned with corporations in mind. But that means another great advantage to the entity having status as a legal person: They can just slip rather neatly into the vast structure of common law for tort which already exists. Thus, just as you could sue me for fraudulently selling you a car with no brakes and causing you injury, you could equally sue Chevrolet for the exact same thing under the exact same law.

Which is irrelevant, because under the hypothetical situation of abolished corporate personhood, the company owners and/or BoD can be summoned instead -- as well as being fined, and levied, and even bankrupted. It was, in fact, that distasteful scenario that provided some of the impetus to create the legal innovation of corporate personhood.

Fully agreed. See comment below about encouraging business.

You act as if this is somehow the only way that business can be conducted. The UK provides an entirely different example. A case in point: back in 1995, a rogue securities trader in Singapore by the name of Nick Leeson caused the collapse of Barings Bank in the UK in 1995.

<Snip>

Barings exec: The court allowed me to keep personal clothing. The cufflinks are borrowed for the occasion [the television interview]

No so much. There's a reason that can see "Ltd" after a company name in the UK. "Limited Liability". For the officers of a company to be held liable, it must be shown that their actions caused the issue in question (With some statutory cases of direct liability, such as in certain safety issues). In the Barings case, as one investigation put it, "The only way executives could not have known was that they purposefully shielded themselves from the truth." When the company fails due to, basically, unfortunate circumstances, such as when Barings went bust in 1890 after Argentina defaulted on its payments, the officers would not held financially liable. (At the time, Barings was a partnership, not a limited company, so the brothers actually did pay out, but the statement of example as applied to an Ltd or Plc is valid)

The same way, in fact, that a single proprietorship business owner is invested in his/her business, and the same way that an employee is invested in the employer's business.

The CEO of a company is technically an employee, is he not?

The point of incorporation was not to encourage business. It was, in fact, a legal innovation to provide extra benefits for business while shielding business owners from legal liability.

You seem to be stating that the whole legal fiction thing was developed when evil businessmen conspired with politicians in the late 19th Century to find a way to fleece people without the possibility of loss. This isn't the case. Again, it was to encourage business.

Most companies are, as you are doubtless aware, not publicly listed companies, big corporations, but privately owned ones. Starting a business is a gamble: Some succeed, some fail. By developing the Private Limited Company, this means that Sean and Patrick, two friends, can pool together their resources, and invest what they can afford into setting up a small car repair shop business or whatever and have at it. If it fails due to circumstances beyond their best, honest, law-abiding efforts, which is entirely possible, they're going to be liable only to whatever extent they invested. They don't need to worry about them and their families losing their homes. The gamble to set up their small business becomes far more appealing, and you will get more people who are willing to gamble $100,000 to set up a small business than who will gamble their entirely worldly posessions to set up the same small business.

NTM

[viscousmemories]

Obama Assails Supreme Court Ruling On Political Advertising - WSJ.com

One thing (among many) I don't understand about this ruling: Aren't there limits to how much an individual can donate to a campaign? If so, why is that not an unconstitutional limitation on one's free speech?

[Kael]

There are limits on what an individual can donate, yes. From what I can find, currently single-candidate PACs have the same limits, PACs being the old way corporations and other organizations got around donation limits. I don't know if this ruling puts corporations and such at the same limits or if there are any limits at all, I haven't seen anything about that.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

I'm going to use British terminology here as that's what I was taught.

Not really.

And yet you ignored the counterexamples I gave you, preferring instead to repeat your original claims. You do realize that repetition is not substantiation?

Tort law is not entirely (or even mostly) dedicated to corporations. Interactions between individuals (or even partnerships) comprise a large chunk of that law. Not all businesses are corporations, either.

To this end, we're not even talking about businesses exclusively, but any fictional legal entity from Coca Cola through the RSPCA.

No, that is what the case before the SC was about.

What you and I are discussing was your original overblown claim that corporations rule our entire way of life - and your ensuing nonsense about the historical roots of legal theory of incorporation in the USA.

Which is irrelevant, because under the hypothetical situation of abolished corporate personhood, the company owners and/or BoD can be summoned instead -- as well as being fined, and levied, and even bankrupted. It was, in fact, that distasteful scenario that provided some of the impetus to create the legal innovation of corporate personhood.

Fully agreed. See comment below about encouraging business.

What I described above is not "encouraging business". It is unfairly advantaging business by the creation of a new legal fiction in 1886.

You act as if this is somehow the only way that business can be conducted. The UK provides an entirely different example. A case in point: back in 1995, a rogue securities trader in Singapore by the name of Nick Leeson caused the collapse of Barings Bank in the UK in 1995.



Barings exec: The court allowed me to keep personal clothing. The cufflinks are borrowed for the occasion [the television interview]

No so much. There's a reason that can see "Ltd" after a company name in the UK. "Limited Liability". For the officers of a company to be held liable,

I'm aware of what Ltd means, having had the same corporate law classes you've had. My point stands.

The same way, in fact, that a single proprietorship business owner is invested in his/her business, and the same way that an employee is invested in the employer's business.

The CEO of a company is technically an employee, is he not?

Dodge. Address the point.

The point of incorporation was not to encourage business. It was, in fact, a legal innovation to provide extra benefits for business while shielding business owners from legal liability.

You seem to be stating that the whole legal fiction thing was developed when evil businessmen conspired with politicians in the late 19th Century to find a way to fleece people without the possibility of loss. This isn't the case. Again, it was to encourage business.

And again, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

In the USA, this particular legal doctrine came about as a way to shield the railroad barons of the late 1800s. Railroads already enjoyed numerous kickbacks, both state and federal, as well as employing slave labor and broad powers of eviction. Railroad security teams acted as virtual police and posse in the areas where the railroad was expanding. A business that needed "help" the least of any business received this legal innovation to help create and preserve its monopoly.

Most companies are, as you are doubtless aware, not publicly listed companies, big corporations, but privately owned ones.

In point of fact, most businesses are sole proprietorships, that are not allowed the kind of shielding of private (personal) assets that occurs under a corporation. Moreover, it is the small businesses that create most of the jobs and innovation in the economy. If "encouraging business" were the reason behind the shield of corporation, then why doesn't that shield cover sole proprietorships?

Big businesses do *not* want to encourage job growth, nor do they want to encourage innovation. What they *do* want to encourage is larger market share of their own, while doing whatever they can to stifle competition.

What you are deliberately missing is that the businesses that enjoy this shield are the ones least likely to need it. And when one considers that businesses grew and prospered just fine in the USA prior to the 1886 ruling -- contrary to the rationale you offered behind the goal of incorporation -- the entire flimsy fig leaf of excuse falls away.

Starting a business is a gamble:

So is starting a sole proprietorship. Why aren't they shielded?
So is a limited partnership. Why aren't they shielded?
So is a general partnership. Why aren't they shielded?
Hell, so is being an employee of a company. Why aren't they shielded?

Is it sinking in yet?

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Aren't there limits to how much an individual can donate to a campaign? If so, why is that not an unconstitutional limitation on one's free speech?

They are constitutional (First Amendment rights not being absolute) so long as the contribution limits are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest (the "strict scrutiny" test, whereby purported First Amendment violations might survive judicial review):

The contribution provisions, along with those covering disclosure, are appropriate legislative weapons against the reality or appearance of improper influence stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions, and the ceilings imposed accordingly serve the basic governmental interest in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process without directly impinging upon the rights of individual citizens and candidates to engage in political debate and discussion.

Buckley v. Valeo syllabus.

[Jug Pilot]

Question.

With this ruling reinforcing corporations are “people”, will corporations that “own” other corporations be forced to give up those other corporations? The Law says people cannot own other people (slaves). And it’s a clear violation of the anti-slavery law.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Sauron

And yet you ignored the counterexamples I gave you, preferring instead to repeat your original claims. You do realize that repetition is not substantiation?

What counter-examples? We are arguing over some very fundamental differences in opinion over basic principle, not cases in point. So basic, that Title 1, Section 1 of the US Code says "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals"

No, that is what the case before the SC was about.

Does the ruling, or does the ruling not cover fictional legal persons which are not large, publicly traded corporations. Even the subject line of this thread says 'unions', for example.

What you and I are discussing was your original overblown claim that corporations rule our entire way of life - and your ensuing nonsense about the historical roots of legal theory of incorporation in the USA.

No. I said that the concept of the fictional legal person is a fundamental basis in our way of life. Business corporations may be FLPs, but not all FLPs are business corportations. You seem to be focusing on the effects on wall street execs and robber barons. I'm looking at the issue of the legal rights of the FLP of all sorts, all the way from General Motors down to the Salvation Army. The issues of liability or otherwise of the officers of an FLP is actually somewhat irrelevant to the argument. Does the ruling not apply equally to all organisations listed in USC 1 S1 or have I missed something?

Perhaps I should ask you a more fundamental question: Do you agree with the concept of the fictional legal person? If 'yes', we are not as diametrically opposed as it might first appear.

What I described above is not "encouraging business". It is unfairly advantaging business by the creation of a new legal fiction in 1886.

I'm a little out of my comfort zone here due to national differences, but a quick hunt seems to indicate that in the US it was an extant legal fiction referenced in 1819 when SCOTUS held that an 18th century charter between King George and Dartmouth College was a private contract treated as between two persons. Perhaps we are even not in agreement over the meaning of the word 'Corporation', which I understand to mean any organisation which is constructed by its articles of incorporation and which has legal personification (hence the word), and not purely for-profit ones. For example, British law references incorporated organisations in the early 17th Century (eg Case of Sutton's Hospital) and so would not have been entirely unfamiliar to the US courts on Day 1 of its existence. The 1886 case, presumably SCC vs SPRR, doesn't appear to claim to invent the doctrine of 'corporate personhood', it just stated as a given that the 14th applies to it.

I'm aware of what Ltd means, having had the same corporate law classes you've had. My point stands.

To the extent that in certain circumstances such as malfeasance that the corporate veil can be pierced in the UK, yes, you are correct. To say that the officers of a company will routinely be held financially liable if the company goes under for whatever circumstances, no. To be sure, my corporate law classes were on Irish law which is by necessity closely linked to UK law. To the extent that cases since the founding of the US are relevant, you have the advantage. To the extent that the principles of the fictional legal person are founded to include common law pre-dating the US, there's less of a difference.

Dodge. Address the point.

I did. You said that an executive should be invested in a company the same way as an employee is. The executive is an employee. If the business goes under, just like an employee, he's lost his job.

In the USA, this particular legal doctrine came about as a way to shield the railroad barons of the late 1800s.

Before addressing this, which particular legal doctrine are we arguing? The Fictional Legal Person, or the limited liability imposed by the corporate veil? In fairness, I seem to have started to merge the two myself, a mistake I shall endeavour not to further. SCC v SPR had little to do with the corporate veil and much to do with the FLP.

Moving to side-argument of the limited liability issue.

In point of fact, most businesses are sole proprietorships, that are not allowed the kind of shielding of private (personal) assets that occurs under a corporation. Moreover, it is the small businesses that create most of the jobs and innovation in the economy. If "encouraging business" were the reason behind the shield of corporation, then why doesn't that shield cover sole proprietorships?

It doesn't need to.

Most proprietorships are small little businesses with little overhead, little liability and little debt. The benefits of limited liability also come with a bunch of statutory/legal requirements. Joe's Computer Fix-it, sole employee Joe, has no particular perceived need for the limited liabilities, and thus has no inclination to go to the trouble of incorporating as a limited liability company. Mandating it would probably end up stifling business even more than allowing it permits business. Most businesses do not need to progress beyond this point. On the other hand, once the business is improving to the level of a half-dozen employees, a mortgage on a business office in the local industrial estate and so on, not exactly big, he's going to start seriously consider creating the private limited company. Otherwise, by growing and expanding, he may end up exposing himself to further liabilities he does not wish to.

Big businesses do *not* want to encourage job growth, nor do they want to encourage innovation. What they *do* want to encourage is larger market share of their own, while doing whatever they can to stifle competition.

I would have thougt that any business would want that, big or small.

So is starting a sole proprietorship. Why aren't they shielded?
So is a limited partnership. Why aren't they shielded?
So is a general partnership. Why aren't they shielded?
Hell, so is being an employee of a company. Why aren't they shielded?

Is it sinking in yet?

That they are not shielded does not affect their status as fictional legal entities (Except for the employees, of course). (Are not the limited partners in a limited partnership, well, limited?)

That their owners think that either they have not much that can be lost due to liability, or that they are so good at what they do that the possibilities of losing everything is unlikely does not detract from the benefits of limited liability to a small expanding business.

With this ruling reinforcing corporations are “people”, will corporations that “own” other corporations be forced to give up those other corporations? The Law says people cannot own other people (slaves). And it’s a clear violation of the anti-slavery law.

Interesting question, but one which has been 'askable' for the odd century without a problem. I've certainly not considered it.

NTM

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

They are constitutional (First Amendment rights not being absolute) so long as the contribution limits are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest (the "strict scrutiny" test, whereby purported First Amendment violations might survive judicial review):

The contribution provisions, along with those covering disclosure, are appropriate legislative weapons against the reality or appearance of improper influence stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions, and the ceilings imposed accordingly serve the basic governmental interest in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process without directly impinging upon the rights of individual citizens and candidates to engage in political debate and discussion.

Buckley v. Valeo syllabus.

So will this same limitation apply to corporate donors?

[chunksmediocrites]

I think Glenn Greenwald has some worthwhile points to make on the Supreme Court ruling.
What the Supreme Court got right

Critics emphasize that the Court's ruling will produce very bad outcomes: primarily that it will severely exacerbate the problem of corporate influence in our democracy. Even if this is true, it's not really relevant. Either the First Amendment allows these speech restrictions or it doesn't. In general, a law that violates the Constitution can't be upheld because the law produces good outcomes (or because its invalidation would produce bad outcomes).

One of the central lessons of the Bush era should have been that illegal or unconstitutional actions -- warrantless eavesdropping, torture, unilateral Presidential programs -- can't be justified because of the allegedly good results they produce (Protecting us from the Terrorists). The "rule of law" means we faithfully apply it in ways that produce outcomes we like and outcomes we don't like. Denouncing court rulings because they invalidate laws one likes is what the Right often does (see how they reflexively and immediately protest every state court ruling invaliding opposite-sex-only marriage laws without bothering to even read about the binding precedents), and that behavior is irrational in the extreme. If the Constitution or other laws bar the government action in question, then that's the end of the inquiry; whether those actions produce good results is really not germane. Thus, those who want to object to the Court's ruling need to do so on First Amendment grounds. Except to the extent that some constitutional rights give way to so-called "compelling state interests," that the Court's decision will produce "bad results" is not really an argument.

More specifically, it's often the case that banning certain kinds of speech would produce good outcomes, and conversely, allowing certain kinds of speech produces bad outcomes (that's true for, say, White Supremacist or neo-Nazi speech, or speech advocating violence against civilians). The First Amendment is not and never has been outcome-dependent; the Government is barred from restricting speech -- especially political speech -- no matter the good results that would result from the restrictions. That's the price we pay for having the liberty of free speech. And even on a utilitarian level, the long-term dangers of allowing the Government to restrict political speech invariably outweigh whatever benefits accrue from such restrictions.

I'm also quite skeptical of the apocalyptic claims about how this decision will radically transform and subvert our democracy by empowering corporate control over the political process. My skepticism is due to one principal fact: I really don't see how things can get much worse in that regard. The reality is that our political institutions are already completely beholden to and controlled by large corporate interests (Dick Durbin: "banks own" the Congress). Corporations find endless ways to circumvent current restrictions -- their armies of PACs, lobbyists, media control, and revolving-door rewards flood Washington and currently ensure their stranglehold -- and while this decision will make things marginally worse, I can't imagine how it could worsen fundamentally.

Here's more from Greenwald's second post, Follow-up on the Citizens United Case:

More important, I want to note one extremely bizarre aspect to the discussion yesterday. Most commenters (though not all) grounded their opposition to the Supreme Court's ruling in two rather absolute principles: (1) corporations are not "persons" and thus have no First Amendment/free speech rights and/or (2) money is not speech, and therefore restrictions on how money is spent cannot violate the First Amendment's free speech clause. What makes those arguments so bizarre is that none of the 9 Justices -- including the 4 dissenting Justices -- argued either of those propositions or believe them. To the contrary, all 9 Justices -- including the 4 in dissent -- agreed that corporations do have First Amendment rights and that restricting how money can be spent in pursuit of political advocacy does trigger First Amendment protections.
...>snip<...
... Justice Stevens says: "of course . . . speech does not fall entirely outside the protection of the First Amendment merely because it comes from a corporation," and "no one suggests the contrary." The fact that all nine Justices reject a certain proposition does not, of course, prove that it's wrong. But those who argue that (1) corporations have no First Amendment rights and/or (2) restrictions on money cannot violate the free speech clause should stop pretending that the 4 dissenting Justices agreed with you. They didn't. None of the 9 Justices made those arguments.

To the contrary, the entire dissent -- while arguing that corporations have fewer First Amendment protections than individuals -- is grounded in the premise that corporations do have First Amendment free speech rights and that restrictions on the expenditure of money do burden those rights, but those free speech rights can be restricted when there's a "compelling state interest." In this case, the dissenters argued, such restrictions are justified by the "compelling state interest" the Government has in preventing the corrupting influence of corporate money. That's why the extent of one's belief in the First Amendment is outcome-determinative here. Those who want to restrict free speech always argue that there's a compelling reason to do so ("we must ban the Communist Party because they pose a danger to the country"; "we must ban hate speech because it sparks violence and causes a climate of intimidation"; "we must ban radical Muslim websites because they provoke Terrorism"). One can have reasonable debates over the "compelling interest" question as a constitutional matter -- and, as I said yesterday, I'm deeply ambivalent about the Citizens United case because that's a hard question and I do think corporate influence is one of the greatest threats we face -- but, ultimately, it's because I don't believe that restrictions on political speech and opinions (as opposed to other kinds of statements) can ever be justified that I agree with the majority's ruling. There are reasonable arguments on all sides of that question.

Greenwald points out elsewhere that Constitutional protections for corporations, via the Fourth Amendment, protect unions from being searched and raided by the police without warrant, protect organizations like the ACLU from government harassment, and keep the government from passing laws to tax businesses or organizations that express opposition to the Iraq war, for example, or other government policies. While not being people, there are some Constitutional protections for corporate entities.