Citizens United case , Glenn Greenwald

[Jefferson23]

**Excellent analysis imo, share your thoughts please.


Follow-up on the Citizens United case
By Glenn Greenwald
(updated below - Update II - Update III)

As one would expect, a substantial number of commenters yesterday disagreed with the Supreme's Court ruling in the Citizens United case case and with my partial defense of it. I say that's to be expected because, in our political discourse, it's virtually always the case that opinions about court rulings perfectly coincide with opinions about the policy whose constitutionality is being adjudicated (e.g., those who favor same-sex marriage on policy grounds cheer court rulings that such marriages are constitutionally compelled, while those who oppose them on policy grounds object to those court rulings, etc. etc.). When a court invalidates Law X or Government Action Y on constitutional grounds, it's always so striking how one's views about the validity of the court's ruling track one's beliefs about the desirability of Law X/Action Y on policy grounds (e.g., "I like Law X and disagree with the Court's ruling declaring Law X unconstitutional" or "I dislike Law X and agree with the Court's striking down Law X"). Campaign finance laws are popular with readers here, and thus a court decision striking down those laws inevitably will be unpopular (though the public at large -- including 2/3 of Democrats -- overwhelmingly agrees with the Court's ruling). It's critical always to note that these are two entirely distinct questions: (1) is Law X/Government Action Y a good thing?, and (2) is Law X/Government Action Y Constitutional? If you find yourself virtually always providing the same answer to both questions -- or, conversely, almost never providing opposite answers -- that's a very compelling sign that your opinions about court rulings are outcome-based (i.e., driven by your policy preferences) rather than based in law or the Constitution.


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. Here's what Justice Stevens himself said in his dissent (p. 54-55):



http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

[CJCRANE]

1. There's something very murky going on...

what exact date did the SC suddenly decide to revive this case and how long did they take to deliberate on it?

[Jefferson23]

7. Here are a couple of articles regarding your concerns, I imagine

there will be more stories to come in the near future on the back story. Thanks for your response.




(1)The Man Who Took Down Campaign Finance Reform

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/brains-behind-citizens-united


(2)snip* This issue should never have been before the court. The justices overreached and seized on a case involving a narrower, technical question involving the broadcast of a movie that attacked Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2008 campaign. The court elevated that case to a forum for striking down the entire ban on corporate spending and then rushed the process of hearing the case at breakneck speed. It gave lawyers a month to prepare briefs on an issue of enormous complexity, and it scheduled arguments during its vacation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri1.html

[Make7]

2. Please use permalinks to blog posts.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/index.html
 

[skepticscott]

3. Wish more posters here

would have read Greenwald's columns on this case, and the responses to the criticisms of his columns. There's a lot of self-righteous bloviating going on here without real understanding of the constitution or the issues involved.

[Jefferson23]

6. Thank you for your response, so far this Op has been unrecommended.

What is important imo is for the analysis of the decision will hopefully lead to legislation that could possibly address the abuses we are all concerned about. I don't see how that can occur if we ignore the constitutionality that even the dissenting justices have acknowledged.

[KoKo]

4. OP...do you have a better link to Greenwald article? I only came up with a Gitmo Video..

Would like to read Glenn's opinion on this...when you have time to fix link. Thanks

[Jefferson23]

5. Sorry about that, this link should work, if not, scroll down on

Greenwald's column until you see the one marked, Citizens United.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/index.html

[Atticus]

8. So, this latest fiction is OK because it is grounded on prior Court-approved fictions?

It is NOT really that complicated for anyone except attorneys.

Corporations are NOT "persons" (no matter WHO says they are) and, therefore, can't have "rights" under our Constitution. The people who manage,own and work for corporations ARE "persons" and share our rights.

It's a clear, understandable and strongly-held conviction that is, I believe, shared by most real live people. The fiction of corporate "personhood" was adopted as a device to allow wealthy people to limit their investment risk. That was a justifiable social trade-off, as the corporate form has unquestionably boosted the standard of living of even the poorest among us. But, there is NO trade-off here. Citizen's United was a power grab by the bloodless plutocrats who moved Roberts and Alito into place as surely as if they were chess pieces. WE didn't get anything---except screwed---again.

[Jefferson23]

9. In getting unscrewed as much as possible is the key going forward and

one reason I put up this analysis. If the lawmakers come up with something too quickly that can be easily challenged again, we stay screwed.

[skepticscott]

10. Total hogwash

In the first place, free speech rights are not restricted to "persons" under the First Amendment. In fact, the First Amendment does not make any mention of who may and may not exercise the right of free speech. It says simply that Congress may not restrict the right of free speech, no matter who is doing the talking. And frankly, if you think about it, trying to separate the free speech rights of individuals from those of corporations is a silly and useless exercise. You may be bothered by the degree to which corporations have been granted "personhood" under the law, and so am I, frankly. But that issue is completely irrelevant to this case.

As far as the notions that corporations don't have any rights under the Constitution, do you believe that government law enforcement agencies have the right to raid the offices of the ACLU, Citizens United or Greenpeace and seize whatever corporate documents and other materials they like, with no warrant and no justification? Or do you believe that those corporations enjoy the same 4th Amendment rights as individuals?

[Atticus]

11. With reference to your first paragraph, we have vastly different definitions of "irrelevant".

As to your second paragraph, you DO know that's a straw-man argument, right?

Of course, the government should not have the right to raid the offices of the ACLU, etc. without a warrant because corporate records contain information about the identity, lifestyle, assets, actions, speech and incomes of REAl "persons".

The average person, about whom law in this country should display at least some concern, has never heard a corporation "speak". They have heard people speak for and on behalf of corporations: those artificial, legislatively sanctioned investment vehicles devised to limit risk to their investors. But, corporations are incapable of "speech" as the word is understood outside the narrow confines of legal construction.

[skepticscott]

12. Instead of just making vague statements

about the definition of irrelevant, why don't you let everyone in on why corporate personhood, or lack thereof, has anything to do with the First Amendment ban on Congress restricting free speech (which was the basis for the decision in this case)? And your last paragraph exactly makes my point that separating the free speech rights of corporations from those of individuals is a silly and useless exercise in any event.

As far as my second paragraph, your say-so doesn't make it a straw man, and that's NOT why the 4th Amendment applies. Are you saying that if the government only seizes records that don't contain 'information about the identity, lifestyle, assets, actions, speech and incomes of REAL "persons"', (and such record certainly exist) that's perfectly all right and permissible? Please tell me you're not saying that...

[Atticus]

14. I am sorry, I have read and reread your reply and my post and can only conclude that we are

talking past one another. I believe I have clearly stated why the LACK of corporate personhood means that corprations have no Constitutional right to free speech. I regret that you feel that distinguishing between corporations and people---and valuing them differently---is a "silly and useless exercise".

Most of your second paragraph may as well have been written in Farsi. Of course, I am "not saying that". How you could even find an excuse to ask the question eludes me.

Have a good one.

[skepticscott]

13. BTW, are you also saying

that corporations cannot have the right of freedom of the press? That Congress can restrict in any way they like the rights of corporate newspapers to publish stories critical of the government without violating the Constitution? No...you can't be saying that, because that would be idiotic...