Today, January 21, is the fourth anniversary of the Citizen’s United dectision, which extended political free speech rights to corporations, trade unions and non-profit associations. Based on a challenge to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act – McCain-Feingold – the Citizen’s United case ruled that corporations, unions and associations have the same rights as individuals to spend money on independent campaigns in support of candidates or issues.
Campaign finance laws passed in the wake of the Watergate Scandal limit contributions that individuals can make to candidates or parties. A court ruling in the early 1970’s affirmed a free speech right of an individual to spend unlimited amounts of money in support of a candidate, as long as the independent spending is not authorized by or coordinated with the official campaign. Corporations are prohibited from contributing to candidates at all; the Citizen’s United decision left in place the prohibition on corporate contributions to candidates, but ruled that they have the same rights as individuals to fund independent campaigns.
In response to the Citizen’s United decision, groups have formed around the country to advocate overturning the Citizen’s United decision. Some are calling for a constitutional amendment to limit free speech, in order to authorize a ban on corporate spending in political campaigns.
In Riverside, a group has formed called “The 28ers” who advocate a 28th Amendment to the Constitution to limit political speech, in the name of preserving a fair playing field in politics. The 28ers are sponsoring a debate on Poltical Speech on Tuesday, January 28.
The debate title is “Limiting Freedom of Speech Guarantees Freedom of Speech.” Dr Matthew Snyder of the University of California, Riverside, will speak for the affirmative. Speaking for the negative, in defense of unfettered free speech, will by Gene Berkman, Chair of Riverside County Libertarian Party.
The debate will take place at the Unitarian-Universalist Church,
3657 Lemon St, Riverside, California 92501-2834
The debate will take place from 6:30 PM to 7:45 PM with questions afterword, followed by brief presentations on behalf of The 28ers and of the Riverside County Libertarian Party.
More information @ https://www.facebook.com/events/411785125591640/?ref_newsfeed_story_type=regular
What if you haven’t entered into any contract or transaction with them? That’s what I mean by noncontractual.
So its assets may be wiped out in a corporate death and rebirth and the people behind it can just keep going with a new corporation. But, hey, we get to keep their stationary with the old logo.
It’s certainly a major one.
That would be contractual limited liability, which is different from noncontractual limited liability.
Limited Liability for a corporation is not “non-contractual” in any real sense. If you know that you are dealing with a corporation, or a limited liability company, you know that if they owe you money, your recourse is limited to the assets of the corporation. That knowledge exists before you enter into a contract with them or engage in a transaction.
Limited liability does not really protect the corporation – a corporate business is liable to the entire extent of its assets. Limiting liability protects shareholders and corporate officers against having their personal property taken to settle the debts of a corporate business (or LLC).
A corporation only “takes advantage” of limited liability if it goes into bankruptcy. All the corporate assets are divided to cover debts, which is hardly a recipe for financial success. Limited liability is not the reason corporations are successful.
Corporations are not the only entities that have limited liability. If you take out a mortgage in order to buy a house, and you default, the lender can take your house if it is collateral for the loan, but they cannot take other assets from you if the value of the house is less than the mortgage that you have defaulted on. So you as a homeowner (in default) have the advantage of limited liability. But losing your house is hardly a financial victory.
The best and only real way to get money out of politics is to get politics out of money. As for corporations, Gene and I don’t agree, but I think non-contractual limited liability props them up along with many other ways government provides aid to dependent corporations…which in turn prop up the politicians.
Jed,
You make some valid points in regard to the rights of the shareholders of a corporation. Whether a corporation spends money in political campaigns is an issue of corporate governance, and shareholders would have a right to bring it up as an issue at shareholder meetings, or to petition the Board of Directors if they feel strongly.
Spending money on political campaigns is probably less rational than spending money on producing goods for sale, or advertising or other business expenses.
That said, the regularatory environment does affect the bottom line of a business, and defending against overregulation is possibly a legitimate use of business funds
In fact, as Politico reports today, there has not been a significant surge in corporate spending on political campaigns. The situation is much as it was before the Citizen’s United decision – corporations give to trade associations, which lobby and support candidates. But few corporations have spent directly on campaigns, both because of fiscal prudence, and to avoid offending customers. see http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/citizens-united-four-years-later-102449.html?hp=l4
Are corporations individuals themselves, or groups of individuals? Does a corporation have a brain? Does the corporation have a heart? Does a corporation have its own thoughts, own ideals, own ambitions?
A corporation is a group of individuals, and thus has no rights except for the rights of the individual members. Thus, unless the members of the group are in agreement as to which candidate to support and how much, a corporation has no right to contribute any money to any candidate or cause. The same applies to any other group.
The belief that corporations are people and entitled to free speech rights is rooted in collectivism, and has no place in a society that values individual liberty.
It would be great to attend this, Gene. Do you know if there will be a videographer?