If corporations are people, every dollar they spend should be 100% supported by every member of said corporation. You think the janitor wants to donate millions to fascists? Because right now it looks like they do. Forced speech like that should be illegal.
If corporations are people, then they need to pay all their dependants' taxes, and their own. Also, PPS (Personnel Protective Services) should take all the "children" away from toxic and abusive companies, and place them at companies that value their workers.
Right now not even shareholders have a say. I for sure don't have any ability to change where the CEO of the company I have stocks in donates, but I guarantee we are not on the same page.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
Yeah, there's so many places where things got significantly worse, but this specific one is quite easy to argue is one of the single worst single points in the downturn towards fascism.
Kind of. Citizens United didn't just allow unrestricted donations from corporations, but also from trade unions.
The US was over when the Taft-Hartley act was passed, despite Truman's veto. That banned political donations from trade unions, and put varous measures in place to weaken them. Reagan then killed off the last vestiges of relevance the trade unions had in the political sphere. By the time Citizens United happened, trade unions as a political force were basically non-existent.
This was a line that should have never been crossed, perhaps the last nail in the coffin of the USA.
Once you open up campaigns to unlimited corporate and billionaire donations, it's precedent, it's done.
Politics in the USA is now the easiest way to acquire generational wealth without inheriting it. Nancy Pelosi's family is set for generations. Trump's family is now financially secure for centuries. They're not hiding it.
More seriously: this line of reasoning has always struck me as incredibly contrived and facile:
Speech is not subject to the rule of scarcity, and is “free” (as in beer); as such, given a supply of food, water, and breathable air, a person could theoretically speak indefinitely. One’s wealth does not nominally affect how much speech they can output.
Money is subject to the rule of scarcity, and is not “free” (as in beer); as such, a person has access to substantially different amounts of money based on their personal circumstances, family, upbringing, birth country, etc.; one’s wealth has direct bearing on how much money they can output (and “speak” with).
I agree, but there's at least a few decent candidates who will be on ballots in November who know how to be entertaining, and they'll attract the stupid ones who only pay attention to the candidates who make the biggest spectacle.
If corporations are people, we should lock them up for crimes. We should charge personal income tax, charge for social security, and give them the death penalty for murder.
I can't believe it. An organization originally created to get Michael Moore's movies banned from theaters on the grounds that it was a form of campaign spending? These are the people with nefarious intent?
I agree, the uber-wealthy should be excluded from the political process. We should have a government of the working class, by the working class, for the working class.
Another take is that if money is speech then money is fraud, terrorism, fascist oppression, and servitude to foreign interests. So liars who are platformed by media should have all their money taken from them, as well as all media shareholders dispossessed/diluted through nationalization of their shares, and the board of directors/executives of said media also be zeroed out financially.
There don't seem to be nearly enough attempts to force corporations to explain exactly what their money is trying to say when they donate to candidates from both parties, as many of them have done and still do.
People were way too scared about companies buying politicians. It turns out that the real danger did not come from companies, but from their rich owners.
I wonder if he preferred that they leave the empty podium up there to remind all viewers that Mike Rogers is a weak little bitch, or if he'd have preferred they just do away with the debate format, sit in chairs and have a long-form interview.
The politicans you are able to choose from are decided by the wealthy families and interests that run your city, states and federal govt. It has always been this way and it will always be this way. That's why nothing will ever change through voting itself. The entire system is captured by the oligarchs. Even the new socialist wave is the same thing. Any time you hear them run to medicare for all or something else healthcare related, that's your signal who for who owns them. The giant health care establishment. This same form of corruption that has existed since the very first cities in the united states extends to every area of Government. Law enforcement, Judges, District Attorney, Attorney General, Governor, Mayor... All of them are put there by the wealthy class that owns everyone and everything. If any of them ever get out of line, they are removed.
Citizens United was just standardizing a system that began a long time ago.
I remain convinced (from my Canadian perch up above the USA) that if Occupy Wall Street had made repealing Citizens United as their main platform, it may have actually worked. Unfortunately OWS was instead a mélange of angst that couldn't organise itself effectively, for a hundred reasons that ten thousand people smarter than me could better speak about.
One problem is that it's a supreme court decision, and the only way to "repeal" those is a constitutional amendment, which requires support of a 2/3 majority of congress, or a new set of supreme court justices to make a new decision, but those are lifetime appointments and so you may have to wait decades for an opportunity. Realistically the only options are workarounds because a literal repeal has a very high barrier that's unlikely to be overcome even with a very successful mass popular movement.
it just needs at least some turnover at scotus and a new case, so it can get a new ruling that really narrows the previous one or shreds it completely.
Supreme court's decisions are not technically laws, but they're treated as such as far as I can understand - they set precedent on how some law is to be interpreted and other courts follow it
Roe v Wade was another famous supreme court case that was essentially law, until the court was deemed republican enough to kick an abortion related case at them so they could undo it. Roe v Wade was what protected Americans' right to get abortions.
Congress made a law greatly limiting what corporations and organizations could do with regards to publishing electioneering material. Citizens United wanted to publish electioneering material. Federal Election Commission said no. Citizens United sued. Case was appealed to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS said the law violated the first amendment rights of corporations, and overturned it.
if Occupy Wall Street had made repealing Citizens United as their main platform
It would have been ignored, just like all their other platforms.
OWS was a moment for progressive organizing and collective altruism. But the biggest benefits of the movement came from their Rolling Jubilee, their local collectivism leading to shutdowns throughout Manhattan and other big urban centers, and their educational initiatives to turn the tide on anti-socialist propaganda.
This was never a Congressional lobbying operation. It wasn't designed to be.
People don’t have fewer rights under the First Amendment when they assemble to exercise them than they do individually. Citizens United was correctly decided and if you disagree, it’s because you think it’s a ruling that “corporations are people.”
When it’s actually a ruling that corporations are fictions.
Except that's not how they implemented it. Somehow organizing grants you EXTRA rights over being an individual. Suddenly you get an avenue to get around personal contribution limits, on top of retaining your original personal contributions allowance...
You, as an individual, right now, have a limit on how much money you can donate to a political campaign.
An organization is able to bypass that by spending that money directly in support of the campaign, but not directly giving it to them. Thus granting the organization's owners more political power than they had as an individual.
No; the First Amendment bars any government regulation on political speech.
An organization is able to bypass that by spending that money directly in support of the campaign, but not directly giving it to them
There have never been individual limits on indirect political support for issues or candidates because the First Amendment bars government regulation of your political speech.
You’re kind of right, Citizens United did not rule that corporations are people.
That determination was made in the 1880s in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad. Kind of, it was in a summary before the ruling, but (like Robert Bork’s essay that said true monopolies don’t exist and even if they did competition would destroy them and so antitrust action should only be taken if a merger will negatively impact consumers where “negatively impact consumers” is constrained to mean “raise prices in the immediate future”) it was treated as having the force of law.
69 Comments
frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io · 58 pts · 4d
If corporations are people, every dollar they spend should be 100% supported by every member of said corporation. You think the janitor wants to donate millions to fascists? Because right now it looks like they do. Forced speech like that should be illegal.
fartographer@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 3d
If corporations are people, then they need to pay all their dependants' taxes, and their own. Also, PPS (Personnel Protective Services) should take all the "children" away from toxic and abusive companies, and place them at companies that value their workers.
NABDad@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 3d
The employees aren't members. The stockholders are.
Your point may still be valid, but the motivations of the stockholders are likely different than the motivations of the employees.
frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io · 7 pts · 3d
Right now not even shareholders have a say. I for sure don't have any ability to change where the CEO of the company I have stocks in donates, but I guarantee we are not on the same page.
CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world · 44 pts · 3d
The US was over the minute this happened
OriginalTangle@feddit.org · 21 pts · 3d
I just can't comprehend how those SC judges were able to justify this to themselves. The reasoning seems absurd.
CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 3d
Money
MunkyNutts@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 3d
and power,
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
― Frank Wilhoit
village604@adultswim.fan · 2 pts · 2d
Money is just a convenient vehicle for power to them
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 3d
daychilde@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 3d
Yeah, there's so many places where things got significantly worse, but this specific one is quite easy to argue is one of the single worst single points in the downturn towards fascism.
Tenderizer@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 2d
Kind of. Citizens United didn't just allow unrestricted donations from corporations, but also from trade unions.
The US was over when the Taft-Hartley act was passed, despite Truman's veto. That banned political donations from trade unions, and put varous measures in place to weaken them. Reagan then killed off the last vestiges of relevance the trade unions had in the political sphere. By the time Citizens United happened, trade unions as a political force were basically non-existent.
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 3d
This was a line that should have never been crossed, perhaps the last nail in the coffin of the USA.
Once you open up campaigns to unlimited corporate and billionaire donations, it's precedent, it's done.
Politics in the USA is now the easiest way to acquire generational wealth without inheriting it. Nancy Pelosi's family is set for generations. Trump's family is now financially secure for centuries. They're not hiding it.
They won't give up that money willingly.
deWafelMan@lemmus.org · 20 pts · 3d
If corporations are people, they should pay the same taxes.
snooggums@piefed.world · 7 pts · 3d
And be incarcerated for crimes.
isles@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 3d
It's the corporate quantum superposition
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 3d
their rate is usually higher actually
deWafelMan@lemmus.org · 9 pts · 3d
No it’s not. They get to deduct expenses. This includes rent, food, gas, car…
village604@adultswim.fan · 1 pts · 2d
But so do sole proprietorships and LLCs
The rate difference has little to do with deductions.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 3d
I'm sure you have many years of expertise backing up your baseless assertion
bold_atlas@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3d
And I'm sure you dig in your ass and smell your fingers. And? Make a fucking argument and support it or gtfo.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 3d
i'm sorry you're not smart enough to do simple addition and multiplication. it's right there in the tables.
and you should really stop projecting. and wash your hands
deWafelMan@lemmus.org · 0 pts · 3d
Are you a bot? Companies pay tax on profit not income.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 3d
no, they pay taxes on income
BeardedBlaze@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 3d
Lol https://itep.org/88-profitable-corporations-paid-zero-income-tax-in-2025/
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 3d
Congratulations, you've discovered the concept of zeroing out a corporation along with 1826.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works · 18 pts · 4d
Billionaires aren’t people either
More seriously: this line of reasoning has always struck me as incredibly contrived and facile:
switcheroo@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 3d
Nothing the Cons do is about helping anyone but themselves. Our country is too stupid to realize that.
Telorand@reddthat.com · 2 pts · 3d
I agree, but there's at least a few decent candidates who will be on ballots in November who know how to be entertaining, and they'll attract the stupid ones who only pay attention to the candidates who make the biggest spectacle.
fodor@lemmy.zip · 15 pts · 3d
If corporations are people, we should lock them up for crimes. We should charge personal income tax, charge for social security, and give them the death penalty for murder.
Radical_Socialist_t00t@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 3d
And shouldn't let them get away with bankruptcy
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 3d
I can't believe it. An organization originally created to get Michael Moore's movies banned from theaters on the grounds that it was a form of campaign spending? These are the people with nefarious intent?
rumba@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 3d
tbf, people should not be able to buy politicians either.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 3d
I agree, the uber-wealthy should be excluded from the political process. We should have a government of the working class, by the working class, for the working class.
rumba@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 3d
Vote em in, Vote em out. They don't do what people need, kick em to the curb
humanspiral@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 3d
Another take is that if money is speech then money is fraud, terrorism, fascist oppression, and servitude to foreign interests. So liars who are platformed by media should have all their money taken from them, as well as all media shareholders dispossessed/diluted through nationalization of their shares, and the board of directors/executives of said media also be zeroed out financially.
Krudler@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 3d
Americans are done. America is done.
The time to fight this was before it became law.
It's over can't you accept it?? We all saw this happening in front of our eyes but Americans sat on their hands and did nothing and let it happen.
AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3d
anarchy79@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 3d
If they are people they should be able to go to prison like people.
Hey if corporations are people, and you own one, does that make you a slave owner?
minorkeys@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 3d
The most idyllic names often hide the worst legislation.
anarchy79@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 3d
The Free Blowjobs For Everyone Bill that mandates all dicks to be bit off.
mrbeano@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 3d
"Well, surely they don't mean my..."
shit
skisnow@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 3d
There don't seem to be nearly enough attempts to force corporations to explain exactly what their money is trying to say when they donate to candidates from both parties, as many of them have done and still do.
daychilde@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 3d
Au contraire, it is absolutely about helping people - the only people that matter (to themselves) - the billionaire oligarch class.
(i.e. I do not actually disagree)
fisch@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 3d
Johnny Harris made an excellent video about money in US elections: https://youtu.be/-NuXpwB2DV4
People were way too scared about companies buying politicians. It turns out that the real danger did not come from companies, but from their rich owners.
ceenote@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3d
I wonder if he preferred that they leave the empty podium up there to remind all viewers that Mike Rogers is a weak little bitch, or if he'd have preferred they just do away with the debate format, sit in chairs and have a long-form interview.
BigMacHole@thelemmy.club · 2 pts · 3d
How UNAMERICAN of Him!
-Republicans who HATE Billionaires!
RabbitBBQ@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3d
The politicans you are able to choose from are decided by the wealthy families and interests that run your city, states and federal govt. It has always been this way and it will always be this way. That's why nothing will ever change through voting itself. The entire system is captured by the oligarchs. Even the new socialist wave is the same thing. Any time you hear them run to medicare for all or something else healthcare related, that's your signal who for who owns them. The giant health care establishment. This same form of corruption that has existed since the very first cities in the united states extends to every area of Government. Law enforcement, Judges, District Attorney, Attorney General, Governor, Mayor... All of them are put there by the wealthy class that owns everyone and everything. If any of them ever get out of line, they are removed.
Citizens United was just standardizing a system that began a long time ago.
Hupf@feddit.org · 1 pts · 3d
Maybe we should try Newthink instead?
Pulsar@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 3d
kat_angstrom@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 3d
I remain convinced (from my Canadian perch up above the USA) that if Occupy Wall Street had made repealing Citizens United as their main platform, it may have actually worked. Unfortunately OWS was instead a mélange of angst that couldn't organise itself effectively, for a hundred reasons that ten thousand people smarter than me could better speak about.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 3d
One problem is that it's a supreme court decision, and the only way to "repeal" those is a constitutional amendment, which requires support of a 2/3 majority of congress, or a new set of supreme court justices to make a new decision, but those are lifetime appointments and so you may have to wait decades for an opportunity. Realistically the only options are workarounds because a literal repeal has a very high barrier that's unlikely to be overcome even with a very successful mass popular movement.
adarza@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 3d
it just needs at least some turnover at scotus and a new case, so it can get a new ruling that really narrows the previous one or shreds it completely.
kat_angstrom@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3d
As a Canadian, I was entirely ignorant of the Supreme Court's role in this travesty of a Law. Appreciate the explainer.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 3d
np, also technically it is not a law, it's a court interpretation about what laws the constitution allows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 3d
Supreme court's decisions are not technically laws, but they're treated as such as far as I can understand - they set precedent on how some law is to be interpreted and other courts follow it
Roe v Wade was another famous supreme court case that was essentially law, until the court was deemed republican enough to kick an abortion related case at them so they could undo it. Roe v Wade was what protected Americans' right to get abortions.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 3d
Congress made a law greatly limiting what corporations and organizations could do with regards to publishing electioneering material. Citizens United wanted to publish electioneering material. Federal Election Commission said no. Citizens United sued. Case was appealed to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS said the law violated the first amendment rights of corporations, and overturned it.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 3d
It would have been ignored, just like all their other platforms.
OWS was a moment for progressive organizing and collective altruism. But the biggest benefits of the movement came from their Rolling Jubilee, their local collectivism leading to shutdowns throughout Manhattan and other big urban centers, and their educational initiatives to turn the tide on anti-socialist propaganda.
This was never a Congressional lobbying operation. It wasn't designed to be.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 3d
Nothing short of a parade of guillotines could have made OWS successful.
SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip · 2 pts · 3d
OWS didn't fail. It was brutally crushed in a coup coordinated by the Obama administration.
JustPlainDave@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 4d
Duh
crashfrog@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 3d
People don’t have fewer rights under the First Amendment when they assemble to exercise them than they do individually. Citizens United was correctly decided and if you disagree, it’s because you think it’s a ruling that “corporations are people.”
When it’s actually a ruling that corporations are fictions.
ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip · 3 pts · 3d
Except that's not how they implemented it. Somehow organizing grants you EXTRA rights over being an individual. Suddenly you get an avenue to get around personal contribution limits, on top of retaining your original personal contributions allowance...
crashfrog@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 3d
They who? Implemented what?
There never were individual limits on political speech.
ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip · 3 pts · 3d
There were and still are.
You, as an individual, right now, have a limit on how much money you can donate to a political campaign.
An organization is able to bypass that by spending that money directly in support of the campaign, but not directly giving it to them. Thus granting the organization's owners more political power than they had as an individual.
crashfrog@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 3d
No; the First Amendment bars any government regulation on political speech.
There have never been individual limits on indirect political support for issues or candidates because the First Amendment bars government regulation of your political speech.
dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 3d
You’re kind of right, Citizens United did not rule that corporations are people.
That determination was made in the 1880s in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad. Kind of, it was in a summary before the ruling, but (like Robert Bork’s essay that said true monopolies don’t exist and even if they did competition would destroy them and so antitrust action should only be taken if a merger will negatively impact consumers where “negatively impact consumers” is constrained to mean “raise prices in the immediate future”) it was treated as having the force of law.
https://uslawexplained.com/santa_clara_county_v_southern_pacific_railroad
crashfrog@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 3d
CU doesn’t rely on corporations being people. It relies on individuals having First Amendment rights.
PokerChips@programming.dev · 2 pts · 3d
If that's not the most white washing statement I've ever read...
crashfrog@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 3d
It’s not a ruling about the rights of corporations!