It is simply bad case law. No one in their right mind would give a non-natural person -- a state created entity -- free speech. Most certainly not the Founders.

Fucking with the First Amendment itself is going to fuck with 200+ years of First Amendment jurisprudence.

Bad idea.

Tragic to see the occasional DUer who still tries to spin CU as something positive...

by the First Amendment, and such a ruling would be a disaster.

Where CU went off the rails is in finding that there is no basis for differentiating between expenditures made by a corporate entity and expenditures made by an individual on behalf of a candidate or electoral issue. Even among and between natural persons, distinctions can be and are drawn regarding the scope of first amendment rights. In addition, different media of speech can be and are treated differently.

Limiting first amendment rights to natural persons would leave a wide range of non-natural entities exposed to censorship by the state. The list of important first amendment cases that involve non-natural "speakers" includes the Pentagon Papers case, obscenity cases against movie distributors (Joseph Burstyn, Inc.) and magazine and movie producers (cases against Playboy Enterprises, Inc. and Hustler, Inc.). The NAACP, unions, and even DU are non-natural entities that would be at substantial risk if they enjoyed no first amendment protection.

So, Stevens is right to focus on the real issue, not the one that has caught the fancy of so many who instinctively recoil at the idea of giving "rights" to non-natural entities.

You seemed to set that up as strawman so you could fairly easily knock it down with unions and civil rights organizations having free speech along with natural persons, of course, to varying degrees.

But the notion that a corporation -- as a state created entity -- has the same free speech rights as a natural person is absurd. And that is something that deserves recoil. You are careful not to suggest otherwise, I see.

Nor would such a finding be necessary to overturn Citizens United.

But the problem is one of jurisprudence. Changing the single-most important bedrock provision of the Constitution because of a single bad ruling is catastrophic from a jurisprudential standpoint. The First Amendment has never been altered in the Constitution. To do so now because of an idiotic decision would fundamentally alter how we view the Constitution and the First Amendment. Moreover, as I pointed out, it runs the risk of altering centuries of jurisprudence based on the First Amendment as it was originally enacted.

Bad idea.

"No one in their right mind would give a non-natural person -- a state created entity -- free speech."

So how did you not suggest finding that only natural persons have First Amendment protections?

Nor can you fall back on a distinction between a "corporation" and a "union" or a "civil rights organization" -- those organizations are not natural persons and they are established as corporate entities under the law. In many instances, they are non-profit entities, but they are creatures of law -- and thus creatures of the state -- just the same.

In the end, we actually seem to agree. The problem isn't giving corporate entities free speech rights. It's giving them the SAME free speech rights as natural persons when there are compelling grounds for drawing distinctions with respect to particular forms of exercising free speech. That doesn't require an amendment to the Constitution. It requires overturning that aspect of CU that refused to recognize that distinctions are permissible.

"Limiting first amendment rights to natural persons would leave a wide range of non-natural entities exposed to censorship by the state."

The sentence you quote is very clearly referring to giving state created entities and natural persons the same types rights of free speech. Even you don't argue with that.

Here's another strawman: "Nor can you fall back on a distinction between a 'corporation' and a 'union' or a 'civil rights organization.'" Again, the point is that there is no way the Founders would have given corporations -- back then, joint stock associations -- the same rights as a natural person. Again, this is the point, and you don't argue with the point (only set up strawmen).

What you don't address -- which actually gets us back to my point -- is that trying to amend the First Amendment is a surprisingly bad idea from a JURISPRUDENTIAL standpoint. The way judicial review has evolved over the centuries, and the fundamental practice of Constitutional law, almost overwhelmingly advise against this. I almost can't believe Stevens would propose such a bad idea.

But then you somehow agree with me about that, so whatever.

However, the Reich Wing Majority is apparently intent to equate "money" with free speech, not likely to overcome, maybe that's the logic Stephens maybe trying to apply here.. just speculating, but I agree with your point. Bad Idea.

the right to freedom of speech cannot possibly be interpreted to conclude that two or more persons, acting in concert (e.g., an organization) may be denied the same free speech rights as an individual alone possesses. The alternative is absurd.|

That's why Justice Breyer is absolutely correct about the constitutional amendment option. A distinction must be drawn, in plain language, between the right of groups of people to exercise free speech and the necessity of preventing organizations in control of vast sums of money from corrupting the process of republican democracy through bribery. (That's the name of the act - the delivery of something of pecuniary interest to someone holding an office of public trust in order to betray that trust on behalf of a private interest).

Expending a bunch of energy to 'overturn' the case and other case law is absurd - there is no guarantee that it won't simply be re-interpreted the opposite way later. The only way to preserve the Republic is to amend the Constitution.

Onenote does a good job articulating, I think, that freedom of speech is already interpreted that two or more persons, acting in concert (e.g., an organization) have different freedoms of speech than an individual alone possesses. I haven't looked at that case law in a longer time than I care to admit, but I believe he/she is correct.

What makes the Citizens United and its progeny so problematic is the very fact that it is based on the Constitution. Justice Brandeis and the Ashwander rules were vandalized, if not completely turned on their head. See Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936). Now Congress cannot simply clean up the mess that the Roberts majority has created.

That said, I still don't think amending the First Amendment is advisable. Looking at the long arc of U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence, and the wisdom of Constitutional law and its scholars, reversing Citizens United is not, I think, absurd. Of course the Court makes mistakes and will make mistakes in the future. E.g., Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). But the power and prestige it wields as an institution comes from the ability -- even over long periods of time -- to correct its mistakes through case law.

www.wolf-pac.com

Make all 501(c)4 follow the law as written.
Re-recognize money is only property, not a form of communication.

Organized and supermotivated grassroots movement. The coolest story is the one that happened in Vermont.
This was their work. And it's just the beginning:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/citizens-united-constitutional-amendment-vermont_n_1439002.html

The national movement that has already got several states on board, more calls for change in the legislatures in different states. The resolution just cleared the Illinois house and going into the senate.

Go to www.wolf-pac.com and read, think, join, make phone calls, and we will win.

The petition must not be vague, or the cause is lost at the outset. It's easy to just say 'corporations are not people and they do not have the right to buy our politicians.' It has no inherent meaning - it's just rhetoric.

It must state exactly whom is prohibited from doing what and what the penalty(ies) is/are for its violation. Additionally, a single amendment will not suffice to plug the holes. For example, the revolving door, where lawmakers, and, to a far greater extent, employees of regulatory bodies, simply slide back and forth between lucrative jobs with the regulated parties and government, is at least as corrupting as heavy corporate and dark money spending on elections. That door must be closed.

Means of merely sidestepping the effects of an effective amendment must be anticipated and dealt with in the terms of the amendment or amendments.

Join in on the discussion at wolf-pac and fix the frail parts. We would appreciate the help. If you see holes, help plug them or at least point them out.

On Edit: The amendment forces laws to be written to comply. I, personally, want to keep the language open enough o grow in the future. Just as all interpretations of amendments have undergone over the years. The Constitution is supposed to be a living document, not a rigid tombstone.

Really? Have not seen any other organizations fighting for a Constitutional Amendment of this sort.

it's "liberal" the same way Cass Sunstein ("let's make a perception-management empire so vast it makes Oceania look like its approach is just saying 'nu-uh' over and over--but also be nice to chimps&quot is

Let's take a look at the second one.

to keep you safe in that pursuit!

This in a nut shell:

Skeptical about this though: "and allow Congress and the states to impose reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns.”

If we take Congress out, then yes. Congress would have a huge conflict of interest in doing anything about this. The States have to act.

Among the parade of horribles such a determination would allow:

A law that says "It shall be unlawful to expend any money to establish, operate, or support a website devoted to promoting candidates of the Democratic Party or for any person to contribute any sum of money for, or for the sponsor of such a website to accept any money from any person, in support of the website's operations."

Again, the solution exists as it always has: permissible distinctions between speakers and types of speech.

take too long. By then the rethugs will have finished their takeover and we will be their victims again.

Then to correct the deficit the next Democratic president will have to cut social security. It will be wonderful!

Amendment takes a long time to get through all the states etc. so we need to use any other way we can. This issue plus all the other voter suppression laws have us in a very dangerous situation. If we do not get someone else than rethugs in position to fight this it may be way to late. Many states already have laws like that and add in gerrymandering and the SCOTUS money and they are in a winning position.

The only real alternative we have at this point is GOTV and protest the laws.

working very hard on voter suppression and other issues. Maybe they are but we do not see much about what is going on.