Home » Forums » Disciplines » Activism

Supreme Court ruling giving individual rights to corporations

Submitted by jaz on January 30, 2010 - 2:50pm.

On January 21 2010 struck down legal precedent and years of campaign finance reform by finding that corporations had the same rights as individuals: "Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity" (from the majority decision by Justice Anthony Kennedy).

Writing in dissent Justice Stevens pointed to some of the absurdities resulting from the claim that corporations be treated as individuals:

"Although they make enormous contributions to our society,corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters."

"Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech."
 
It has als been pointed out that since individual shareholders may disagree with corporate contributions--the individual rights of the shareholders may be violated by this policy.
 
(One of the stories on the announcement of the decision can be found here: The Christian Science Monitor.)
 
A number of solutions have been put forward to remedy this ruling.
 
One is that the government rewrite the corporate charter: "To address the mistake of Citizens United, the only change required would be for charters to include: 'except that any entity created by this charter shall not have the power to expend money to influence the outcome of any local, state, or federal election.’' "
 
A Campaign Funding Mess
 
Another approach is to amend the constitution explicitly stating that money is not speech, nor corporations individuals.(link is to petition)
 
A third approach is public financing of elections through the "Fair Elections Now" Act.  (link is to petition)
 
And this editorial reminds us that we can influence corporate behavior through spending practices.
 
Finally, some have called for the impeachment of the 5 justices making the majority decision charging them with treason.  The charge is based, in part, on the idea that handing over power to influence elections to foreign corporations is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. (link is to petition)
 
Finally--this is a discussion with an excerpt of a book by Lewis Maltby on the ways in which corporations do not have to follow the constitution--for instance, workers can be fired for stating their views--at work, or even outside the workplace on something like a social networking site (a woman was fired for having a John Kerry bumper sticker in the 2004 election, for example).  So corporations have free speech rights under the constitution, but workers do not have free speech within corporations.  Wow!  If that contrast doesn't spell out where the power is, and how restricted individual liberties are in contrast to corporate freedoms!
 
Can Employers Do That?

 

‹ Genetically Engineered Foods Assessing the true cost of a product through its history ›
» login to post comments | 267 reads

Companies in Montana

Submitted by jaz on March 20, 2010 - 5:18pm.

are suing to strike down the 1912 ban on corporate donations to elections based on the Supreme court ruling.

Lawsuit challenges ban

» login to post comments

US Chamber of Commerce

Submitted by jaz on March 20, 2010 - 5:16pm.

Already the largest lobbying group in the US, the Chamber of Commerce is set to become an even greater political force due to the Supreme Court Ruling.

This article in the LA Times details the Chamber's recent expansion efforts.

According to  "OpenSecrets" in 2009 (before the ruling) the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent "more than $144 million in lobbying expenditures -- exponentially more than runners-up ExxonMobil ($27.43 million), the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America ($26.15 million), General Electric ($25.52 million) and Pfizer ($24.6 million)."

"lobbyists’ clients spent more than $3.47 billion last year, often driven to Washington, D.C.’s power centers and halls of influence by political issues central to the age: health care reform, financial reform, energy policy."

Here's one of the issues that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce pours lobbying efforts into--fighting arbitration reform. The effect of signing binding arbitration agreements was highlighted last year by a case in which a Halliburton employee, Jamie Lee Jones, was going to court to fight the binding arbitration she had signed with the company so that she could have the right to sue after being raped. This is an egregious example, but as this article points out: "If you use credit cards, have a cell phone contract, bought a house from a builder or put your mother or father in a nursing home, you have very likely signed away your right to be heard in court if there's a problem."

NPR Arbitration Reform

» login to post comments

J&J spent $1.64M lobbying government in 4Q

Submitted by DominaLuna on March 24, 2010 - 10:11am.

The good, the bad and the ugly of it

"Johnson & Johnson, the huge maker of health products from Band-Aids to biologic drugs, spent $1.64 million in the fourth quarter lobbying the government on issues related to the health care overhaul and on multiple bills that could affect its revenue, according to a recent disclosure form."

Beyond the just the financial disparity in the financial influence, perhaps an argument should be made that the personhood of corporations impedes an individual's rights to free speech.  I read stuff like this and think to myself that the average person does not have the resources to be involved in knowing what type of bills are even going through our own government.  This has been going on for a long time.  The good things I see is that people are starting to want to be aware... particularly the health care debate, being conscious of preventative care and the problems with our food systems.

» login to post comments