The problem is not the money, but the power. As long as politicians have the power to reward their friends and punish their enemies, that power will be for sale.

Corporations that do not attempt to buy the politicians (Microsoft pre-1998) get attacked. The lesson is clear: pay off the politicians, or get bullied by them.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2026&dat=19981218&id=sMwqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6dAFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5212,1594196

Two observations:

1. Given that campaign finance rules were already full of loopholes, allowing large, rich, foreign-owned corporations to spend an unlimited amount of money on issue advocacy through shell organizations like so-called 529′s, how does this substantially change the status quo? They’re now allowed to use a candidate’s name in advertising (the bulk of campaign expenditures), and to fund their busses/buttons/fliers.

2. Is money really the deciding factor in any campaign? Ron Paul’s 2007-2008 campaign fundraising was record-breaking, but didn’t result in substantial Primary success. Although the campaign was flush with cash, and had sizable grassroots support, it was poorly managed and suffered for it.

“I have the right to free speech. My friend has the right to free speech. If we form a corporation, why should we lose the right to speak together? All corporate free speech means is that the owners of the corporation have free speech and can use their property to further that speech.”

The important part of this paragraph is the ‘property’ part. Corporations have rather huge amounts of money. They can give this money to politicians that support their stances, and these politicians will vote for things favorable to corporations in exchange for this monetary support.

I think it’s obvious why corporations shouldn’t be allowed to give as much money as they wish to a politician they favor. Unrestricted capitalism isn’t a good thing.

Should the FEC be able to ban books if they were paid for by corporations, labor unions, or advocacy groups?

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/permalink/4516d48dcb324ddf1abb5ca09235aea1.html

Where in there does it require that a corporation be given extra legal privileges above and beyond that of any old unincorporated group of individuals to have freedom of speech? Or do you think it’s reasonable to make the 1st amendment toothless by saying that the “press” is free from government intervention, but the government gets to choose who gets to be called “press”?

I can get passionate and angry on my soapbox about extra laws and privileges that our society has abdicated to corporations, but the 1st amendment applies to everyone. Yes, I’m sad and angry that other circumstances have led to powerful corporations capturing much of our government. But limiting the freedom of individuals pooling their resources or of “the press” to partake in political speech is an incredibly bizarre way to fix that.

In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, SCOTUS didn’t in fact rule that corporations were persons, instead it appeared not in the decision itself, but in the headnote prepared by the Court Clerk, who just happened to have previously been the president of another railroad.

Headnotes aren’t supposed to be considered as binding or part of the decisions, but this one seems to have stuck somehow. Kind of a legal “urban legend” which has led to a series of dubious results.

In effect this ruling was interpreted to give the same rights to corporations that the fourteenth amendment, which overturned the Dred Scott decision, guaranteed to everyone, including freed slaves.

One irony, is that since corporations are owned by their shareholders, and “work” for their owners “involuntarily” a case can be made that if corporations are in fact “persons” then such ownership violates the thirteenth amendment which makes slavery and involuntary servitude unconstitutional.

@brian: Your argument seems to address only large, publicly-held corporations. What about small privately-held ones? For example, a corporation with 3 shareholders, who are also the BOD and officers? Should those people’s rights be abridged simply because they don’t care to subject themselves to a litigation-happy public?

Also, if for-profit corporations shouldn’t be allowed to speak on political issues/campaigns because they are “speaking” through representatives (BOD), what about non-profit corporations? What about unions? What about professional associations (e.g. the AMA)?

In this case, the owners of the corporation have directed their proxies to speak on their behalf in the pursuit of profit. Anyone who did not wish for the corporation to speak in pursuit of profit *didn’t buy any shares*. The free speech rights being exercised are those of the owners, more precisely the majority of owners who voted for the current BOD and the minority who agreed to be bound by that vote.

Also, you ducked the question: if you believe corporations do not have free speech, can the government censor the NYT and other corporate news sources?

Remember that Citizens United (the corporation) was set up by a bunch of individuals for the sole purpose of producing works that are pretty inarguably constitutionally protected were they to be produced by individuals. It’s not like they’re a company that’s selling some products and also making political videos with their profits. The only reason Citizens United exists is because the individuals alone (who have donated to Citizens United) don’t have the resources to independently produce political videos/materials. The same thing applies for the ACLU, the NRA, or whatever politically active organization you might wish to support. Nobody (well, very few) would ever have the resources to do the things that these organizations do if they had to operate as individuals.

I agree with you that corporations should not be treated identically to people, but clearly some rights of the people must “bubble up” to the corporation. Should the government be able to search a corporation without a warrant? Should they be able to sieze corporate property without due process? I would think most people would say no. But if corporations don’t have rights, why not?