Neil B: Well, you’ve got a point. But many complainers about CU v. FEC rightly make the point that corporations are chartered with purposes in mind. When I invest in Ford (actual case), I have an expectation of them selling cars as their business. I will grant them the right to defend or explain themselves to government entities, even complain about rules, taxes etc. that affect them etc. but I did not invest for them to represent political views. However, a “media corporation” is representing itself as being in the commentary business. I know that’s what they’re going to do.There’s a difference. I wish defenders of CU v. FEC would use less sloppy thinking and make finer distinctions instead; to me that is a common flaw of libertarian argument.

1) As a Ford shareholder you rightfully state that you expect them to sell cars, explain themselves to the gov’t, etc. I’m going to make a large assumption, but I’m going to assume you invested in Ford for your own financial gain which could be tied to Ford’s financial success. Ford’s actions to maximize it’s profits may include political activities like backing candidates or legislation that will ultimately benefit their bottom line. That being the case, you should expect Ford to represent, on some level, a political viewpoint that is beneficial to the corporation and ultimately yourself in the form of dividends and a higher stock price.

2) As far as finer distinctions go, thats my major problem with distinguishing between media corporations and other corporations. Barring differences in how a company chooses to organize itself internally, a C-Corp is a C-Corp is a C-Corp (same with an s-corp, llc, etc. etc.). So a newspaper organizes itself as a C-Corp the same way a major auto manufacturer might, how does one make a legal distinction between the two? And if one somehow manages to create a legal construct that does recognize the difference, what stops a company from “purchasing” that right? It’s already been mentioned as an example, but GE owns/owned (did they sell it to Comcast?) NBC-Universal, does that mean GE has more of a right to exercise its free speech because it owns NBC than, say, R.H. Donnelly, Inc.? Can GE represent itself as a “media corporation” and avoid limitations on campaign donations?

It isn’t that libertarians (or whoever is defending this case) aren’t willing to recognize the distinction, it just seems very difficult to define that difference in an equitable manner.

BTW Neither the State or private property is a “given” without a process of asking and getting mutual approval (or then I could say I wanted my property lines to be wherever I wanted, so could others – who draws the boundaries? Same problem as for governments anyway.)

As for the government not exceeding the “strict limitations” – well, the limitations come from the citizens as much as the powers do.

Don’t anyone here forget either that it isn’t just about the government! The people who invested in the corporation had an understanding what their money would be spent for (IOW, not for “advocacy” in a case of a non-media corp, something it is shocking the OP didn’t get the distinction.) Hence they can take action against the company on their own. I am hoping for an ultra vires suit against a commerce-chartered company that does political advocacy.

Finally, if you think that any sort of contrived slant in people’s thinking and their ever being manipulated is a “conspiracy theory” needing proof, you are just showing naiveté.

Just because the State legalizes the existence of corporations doesn’t mean it owns them in the first sense, and can therefore exceed the already-existing strict and severe limitations on its powers. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a corporation or an individual being subjected to force or the threat of force by the agents of the State; the State’s power to do so is strictly and severely limited regardless, ITFP.

But if one says “creates” instead of “legalizes”, people are inclined to follow the cultural default chain of reasoning of ‘creates’ ==> ‘owns’ ==> ‘controls’ and are thus persuaded to incorrectly conclude that the State is automatically authorized to exceed the already-existing strict and severe limations on its power, and ‘control’ the freedom of speech of corporations.

Except, of course, for how it isn’t, in that you’re trying to assign ownership and control to the wrong entities and sequence actions out of their proper consequential order, and thus my reasoning is neither circular nor irrelevant because of how it corrects those errors on your parts.

“If the state created corporations because Citizens instructs it to do so,”

Except, of course, that it didn’t; yet again, the State doesn’t create corporations; Citizens do. Because yes, it does matter how one phrases it.

“then surely there is nothing stopping the same citizens from placing limits on those corporations through the state,”

Except, of course, for how there are things stopping that; to begin with, the already-existing limits on the power of the State to do so. Because yes, it does matter what sequence and order are applied.

“and as such we are back at the point made by darkmonohue.”

Except, again, for how you’re trying to assign ownership and control to the wrong entities and sequence actions out of their proper consequential order, and thus we are instead back at my original questions: if my corporation has billions and I want to spend it on projecting my influence, why should the State be allowed to restrict me? Why do you believe the State is at all entitled to do such a thing?

“Aksiom [sic] is confusing the consent of the specific group that forms the corporation with the consent of “the society” that recognized the corporation as a separate entity”

Except, of course, for how I’m not.

“(above the members, for purposes of limited liability etc — all privileges, not inherent rights, and thus subject to conditions and quids pro quo.)”

Except, of course, for how freedom of speech is not a privilege. It is an inherent pre-existing right, and it is the abnormal extension of the State’s power to regulate and control that which by-default needs justification first.

And so far, no one has provided any kind of rational pretext whatsoever for doing that. “Corporations aren’t people” doesn’t just somehow, magically! authorize the State to exceed the already-existing strict and severe limits on its powers to regulate and control speech.

“This is a common mistake, likely an innocent misunderstanding from such as dlp but deliberately dispensed and manipulated by backers of corporate power.”

Cites or you can’t haz konspeeruhsi theori.

If the state created corporations because Citizens instructs it to do so, then surely there is nothing stopping the same citizens from placing limits on those corporations through the state, and as such we are back at the point made by darkmonohue.

Except that our consent is what allows the State to exist ITFP, and likewise controls what it is allowed to do. The State is no less a nominalization than a corporation is, and possesses no extra authority or permission to regulate than normal merely for its prior existence.

“Corporations are chartered by the state, because the corporate form serves the social good by increasing economic activity,”

No; they’re chartered because Citizens require the State to allow them to be chartered. Citizens do not need to establish the “social good” of any activity in order to engage in it, including the chartering of corporations; the default position is that the Citizenry are empowered and entitled to do whatever they wish. It is the agents of the State who are by-default limited in their allowable official actions.

“and are granted certain privileges and immunities to that end.”

No; they’re granted certain privileges and immunities to the end of Citizens’ desire for them to have such things. Citizens don’t need the State’s permission to do things; it is the State which needs the Citizens’ permission to do things.

“People exist before the state, and have rights that the state can’t take away.”

Essentially correct, if poorly phrased.

“Corporations are created by the state;”

No; corporations are created by Citizens.

“they are able to acquire their billions precisely because of the legal protections the state affords them.”

Which it does because Citizens instruct it to do so.

“If the state creates something, surely it can place some restrictions upon it?”

No, it’s not sure at all; nor is it relevant, because, again, the State does not create corporations. Citizens create them, and require the State to regulate them. The apparent assumption that the State is just, somehow, magically! authorized to limit corporations’ actions in ways that it is not authorized to limit those of Citizens, simply because corporations are nominalizations rather than discrete individuals, remains baseless and unsupported.

“By the way, no such thing as the modern (limited liability) corporation existed at the time of the Founding Fathers, who surely would have recoiled in horror at the idea that it was acceptable for people to shirk their debts or avoid lawsuits simply by cobbling up some legal fiction to stand in.”

[shrug] So?

There’s a difference. I wish defenders of CU v. FEC would use less sloppy thinking and make finer distinctions instead; to me that is a common flaw of libertarian argument.

Acksiom: If my corporation has billions and I want to spend it on projecting my influence, why should the State be allowed to restrict me?

Because the state is what allows your corporation to exist in the first place. Corporations are chartered by the state, because the corporate form serves the social good by increasing economic activity, and are granted certain privileges and immunities to that end. If the dog you own bites the neighbor’s kid, you’re liable; if the corporation you (as a shareholder) own borrows money it can’t pay back, you can’t be made to pay the balance (that’s what limited liability means). People exist before the state, and have rights that the state can’t take away. Corporations are created by the state; they are able to acquire their billions precisely because of the legal protections the state affords them. If the state creates something, surely it can place some restrictions upon it?

By the way, no such thing as the modern (limited liability) corporation existed at the time of the Founding Fathers, who surely would have recoiled in horror at the idea that it was acceptable for people to shirk their debts or avoid lawsuits simply by cobbling up some legal fiction to stand in their place.

Citizens United, on the other hand, claims by their very name to be a bunch of citizens, united. So, which citizens? Who is doing the speaking?

I think restricting the notion of corporate rights and making it clear those rights are inherent in the individual writers/speakers/publishers might be a distinction that can be drawn. Probably by someone smarter than me, I suppose. Or maybe I’m just missing some big huge flaw in this?

“only restricting the projection of influence through use of money.”

Eric, would you please explain why you believe the State is at all entitled to do such a thing? Because I question the apparent inherent assumption that it is.

There are a number of questions here:
1. Should the state do such a thing, as good policy? No, I think. Corporations need to defend themselves against regulation.
2. Does the Constittuion as we have it prohibit such a restriction?
No, I think, contrary to the Supreme Court. Freedom of the press doesn’t mean being able to buy ads.
3. Is it unjust to have such a restriction?
No. This is a matter of what makes our political system work well. There is no inherent good in corporations having the freedom to buy ads.

Seriously?

> Why doesn’t a group of people whose purpose is
> to make money mining coal have the same first
> amendment rights to advocate for candidates
> who are friendly to coal mining as a group of,
> say, single mothers has to advocate for
> candidates that will advance the interests of
> single mothers?

Because the group of people whose purpose is to make money mining coal have access to a large pile of capital that isn’t theirs to spend on that purpose, thanks to the abstraction layers inherent in our economic system.

If MADD wants to lobby for tougher drunk driving laws, they solicit donations from the public. If I want tougher drunk driving laws and I believe that MADD can help provide them by advocacy, I can give MADD my money and they’re a trusted third party for advancing my agenda of tougher drunk driving laws. A simple reflexive relationship.

If Southern California Edison wants lower emission standards so that they can produce energy more cheaply, they don’t solicit donations from me on that basis. However, it’s a pretty good bet that (thanks again to those abstraction layers) I have money in Southern California Edison, either through my 401K, or 403b, or mutual fund, or managed investment portfolio, or whatever. Even if *I* don’t have money in SCE, it’s likely that the firemen, or police department, or other taxpayer-funded organization has a pension plan or retirement plan invested in one of those abstraction instruments. However, I didn’t give that money to Southern California Edison so that they could lobby for lower emission standards; they have simply chosen “lower emission standards” as a profit maximization strategy. I don’t pay taxes so that the LAPD pension fund can invest in SCE and give SCE funds to choose to invest in lobbying for lower emission standards. Unlike the example of MADD, where the trust relationship is reflexive and the decisions are tightly coupled to those trust relationships, in the case of SCE the trust relationship is associative and the decisions are very, very loosely coupled with those trust relationships.

So if MADD misbehaves, it’s pretty trivial for me to decouple myself from MADD. If SCE misbehaves, it’s extremely difficult, if not impossible, for me to decouple myself from SCE.

In short, there’s a pretty major moral hazard exception scenario in one case that isn’t present in the other. MADD is answerable to those who use it as a lobbying aggregation mechanism. SCE simply is not.

Eric, would you please explain why you believe the State is at all entitled to do such a thing? Because I question the apparent inherent assumption that it is.

If my corporation has billions and I want to spend it on projecting my influence, why should the State be allowed to restrict me?

brentpeterson01:
True. But then Madison went ahead and drafted the First Amendment, which described the freedom of speech and press in terms of a federally guaranteed right. If it was clear that the power to regulate speech and the press was not delegated to Congress, then the First Amendment would have been superfluous.

Hmmmmm. Maybe I’m a product of an inadequate education but I was always under the impression that the 1st ten amendments (“Bill of Rights”) were not federally guaranteed rights but were “constitutionally” protected rights in so much as they were to protect the citizens natural and endowed by our creator rights from encroachment by the Federal Government. I don’t think they meant the federal government to protect us from encroachment by themselves.

But, if that is based on a definition of press that includes function as well as identity — i.e., press actors when they are doing press things — that would protect, at most, only the “news” function, and would leave unprotected all the entertaining and informing speech that TV and film corporations, and perhaps even book publishers, provide. Feds don’t like this week’s Office or Simpsons? Well, that’s OK to censor, because that’s not the “reporting” function. Book banning might even be OK, despite the fact that books are printed on presses, if an evil corporation prints the books, if the books are not “newsy” enough.

On the other hand, if you try to avoid that absurdity by covering all speech functions, such that the press identity alone is enough, you get this: if the ticket into being labelled a “press corp” is doing press activity, and if press activity includes non-newsy entertainment, then those producing solely such speech are also entitled to the golden ticket. That is, there can’t be a requirement that NBC must have a nightly news show as a core press function to earn protection for The Office. The Sci-Fi channel gets protection for Battlestar Galactica based on its provision of that show, period (or you’re back to no protection for them).

So anyone who does a speech function becomes a press corp, unless you say instead that it has to somehow be a core function rather than ancillary, but (1) if Citizens United is set up as a corporation to provide speech, they’re home free, and (2) Microsoft can just set up a sub to be its “speaker,” or you’re in the GE/NBC problem.

This problem is exemplified in Public Citizen’s moronic proposal for a constitutional amendment to say corporations have no constitutional rights except press. Unless they fold all of speech doctrine in under the word press, they’ve OK’d open censorship, even unrelated to campaigns.

This is a valid distinction, arguably at least, because it protects direct free speech, only restricting the projection of influence through use of money. It’s somewhat like the distinction between contributions to ahve the candidate buy ads and buying ads directly yourself.

Of course, anyone who accepts this distinction must also allow bans on wealthy individuals—or poor individuals, for that matter— buying ads instead of speaking for themselves directly. I don’t know if Stevens would do that.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by Just_James12: Lessened Corporate First Amendment Rights and Media Corporations http://bit.ly/6KLUIn...

Malvolio:
I’m curious.Does anyone know of a case where the New York Times’s editorial page came down on the other side from the interests of the New York Times Company (or any similar mismatch in print journalism)?

Well according to one school of thought, it does so reliably every day, because the Times’s liberal editorial bias causes people to stop reading the newspaper, decreasing revenues.

EconRob: So if a corporation wants to exercise freedom of the press can it buy any media outlet and get the freedom?

I’m curious. Does anyone know of a case where the New York Times’s editorial page came down on the other side from the interests of the New York Times Company (or any similar mismatch in print journalism)?

But GE has freedom of the press through its NBC ownership. So if a corporation wants to exercise freedom of the press can it buy any media outlet and get the freedom?