Hacker News Reader

The framers of the constitution never meant for government to have so much power that lobbying it would be able to buy much influence. Beyond that, considering that the vote was restricted to landed elites and mercantile class, there's more credence to the idea that the framers never meant for the government to stifle the speech of anyone (whether corporations or not) than there is to suggest they had any idea on corporate personhood.

Regardless, corporate personhood has existed since colonial times, and the framers didn't do anything to stop it. Meanwhile, the McCain-Feingold act that Citizens United overturned had only been on the books for 8 years before much of it was overturned.

> never meant for government to have so much power that lobbying it would be able to buy much influence

I don't think lobbying is a problem because the government has too much power, but rather because of the electoral system.

When voting is voluntary elections are won by the party that is best able to get out the vote. In order to get out the vote huge sums of money must be spent on political advertising and organization. When political parties are desperate for money it requires them to devote a lot of their time to fundraising and it makes them vulnerable to special interest groups with deep pockets (aka lobbyists). Voluntary voting means more opportunity for money to buy influence.

Compulsory voting, in contrast, means that almost all eligible voters will vote. Political parties can spend less money on advertising, less time fundraising, and more time developing policy and doing the job. Because the electors have to vote they're more likely to take an interest in the election, more likely to listen to the ideas being presented and vote accordingly. The only downside of compulsory voting is that there are more votes to count, but that cost is worth paying.

Compulsory voting is a practical step towards getting the money out of politics and improving the quality of a democracy.

I disagree. I think government authority is the sole foundation upon which all lobbying is built.

If the government has no authority over something, there is no value in lobbying the government for help with that something.

Example: The government has subsidizes and regulates farming. Therefore there is a powerful incentive for agricultural interests to buy special treatment. Add ethanol considerations, and you have oil interests at work too.

I don't see why political ads would decrease just because everybody had to vote.

> The only downside of compulsory voting is that there are more votes to count

Australia has compulsory voting. It also has the donkey vote, estimated at 2% of votes. That is a downside.

http://australianpolitics.com/voting/electoral-system/donkey...

Before they introduced compulsory voting in Australia voter turn out had fallen below 60%. So with compulsory voting the "true vote" if you like is total votes minus informal votes minus donkey votes. Voter turn out for Australian elections these days is greater than 94%. If 5% of those votes are informal or donkey votes then that's still 89% of voters completing "true votes". A 30% non-vote has a far greater influence over an election than a 2% donkey vote.

The Australian Electoral Commission has a page about it: http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/voting/index.ht...

The framers never intended for individuals to give up their rights just because they form corporations.

I have the right to freedom of speech. You have the right to freedom of speech(assuming that you're an American citizen).

If you and I form a partnership with the express purpose of working together to combine our voices and speak together, we retain that right to freedom of speech.

That was what Citizens United held.

Beyond that, you're just plain wrong. Corporations are legal persons. Only persons can be parties to legal actions. If your neighbor's dog escapes and bites you, can you sue the dog? Of course not. You sue the neighbor, the person responsible. If your neighbor kills your dog, can your dog's puppies sue your neighbor? Of course not. Again, non-persons cannot be party to legal actions. A corporation can own property, pay taxes, sue, be sued and as a legal person, corporations have rights. They don't have all of the same rights as people, that's why I find it so frustrating when people conflate "people" with "persons". Legally, they are different concepts.

> Corporations are legal persons. Only persons can be parties to legal actions.

True, only due to bad precedent. "Should they be?" is a question we the people should have had a chance to argue and debate. Instead, it was by a judicial fiat that made a new type of citizenry. And honestly, they are pretty fucked up, with requiring their primary focus to be "Make money at all costs". A human with a similar 'ethics' would be called a sociopath.

Better yet, I'll believe corporations are legal people when Texas executes one.

Secondly, Patently false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...

United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film

United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency

United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins

United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls

United States v. Forty Barrels & Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola

You want more?

> A corporation can own property, pay taxes, sue, be sued and as a legal person

But it can't go to jail, and fines that are levied for wrongful behavior are often less than the profits obtained from said behavior and come about through settlements with no admission of wrongdoing, and without any executives being held responsible.

> The framers never intended for individuals to give up their rights just because they form corporations.

A person never lost their individual right to freedom of speech if they formed or became a member of a corporation.

A person never lost their individual right to freedom of speech if they formed or became a member of a corporation.

That was precisely the issue before the court in this case. Did the individuals who formed the corporation Citizens United retain their right to freedom of speech as it related to releasing a documentary about Hillary Clinton near an election, in violation of McCain-Feingold?

The court ruled that they did not lose their right to freedom of speech.

>I find it so frustrating when people conflate "people" with "persons"

They are virtually synonymous. People is a plural form of person. Most people don't speak legalese.

People is a plural form of person.

Not in the context of the Constitution. "The people" makes reference to American Citizens. "Person" makes reference to legal persons.

The first and original definition of "person" is "a human being".

An alternate, legal definition is "a corporation."

Lets break down that definition and dive deeper into the abstraction.

A law is a piece of paper with words written on it that some people agree on.

A corporation is created by filing articles of incorporation. Again, this is a piece of paper with words written on it.

So, in reality using law to define a corporation as a person you have a piece of paper saying a piece of paper is a human being.

Legal and common definitions are often at odds.

Legally, marijuana and cocaine are "narcotics" but pharmacologically they are not.

The law defines personhood for biological entities too.

One minute before birth, it's not a legal person. One second after birth, it is a legal person.

This is nothing new.

If you don't like the law, convince enough people that the law should be changed.

Let's make sure we know what we're talking about here. The CU decision was over a bunch of people who made a movie that was critical of a political candidate, and aired that movie not long before the election.

Is it your contention that we really should prevent this kind of thing from happening? Because to me, it seems like the very cornerstone of the democratic system. The minute such activity is illegal, the people have lost and we've become an oligarchy, unable to provide information to our fellow citizens necessary to cast informed votes.

The CU decision was over a bunch of people who made a movie that was critical of a political candidate, and paid a TV station to air that movie not long before the election. Congress had restricted spending on political advertising and it was this restriction that CU overturned. You're arguing that the cornerstone of democracy is the ability of the wealthiest to spend unlimited amounts on propaganda to convince citizens that they should vote for the candidates that benefit the wealthy the most.

I'm arguing that the incumbents have a built-in, guaranteed communications channel. Any obstacle to speech by the people (whether they're rich or poor) leaves no response to those in power. In effect, then, the rules enforce an oligarchy.

In fact, your argument that the CU decision only benefits the wealthy is precisely the opposite of the reality. In fact, the wealthy don't need to cooperate in corporate bodies to finance public speech: folks like Donald Trump can get up on a pulpit with their own personal wealth. It's only us regular people who have the need to cooperate (i.e., to incorporate into a body to handle the demands of our effort).

Thus, CU is a benefit to the regular guy, without having much effect on the opportunities available to the rich who can go it alone.

> The minute such activity is illegal, the people have lost and we've become an oligarchy, unable to provide information to our fellow citizens necessary to cast informed votes.

'The people' aren't the ones 'providing information', campaigns full of biased individuals trying to beat a competitor are. The system and its 'elections' has nothing to do with the people, it has to do with a few powerful wealthy entities struggling for power.

Yes, we should definitely prevent a very small minority of political Übermenschen with more money than God from being able to control the system for their own aims.

Campaigns are actually explicitly prohibited from coordinating in any way with the so-called SuperPAC's that have unlimited fundraising ability.

As the parent said, how would you propose to limit political speech in a meaningful way without infringing on the free speech rights of the public at large?

I admit I haven't read the CU decision, but whatever else it is, it has apparently opened the door to no-limit campaign financing. Which is bad for democracy.

There are already laws protecting freedom of expression, so I think it's disingenuous to suggest that CU is all about freedom of expression, and therefore good for democracy.

If you're interested and opinionated, you should read the decision. It's mostly in plain English and the reasoning can be understood by someone who is not a lawyer. It's not long and can be found with Google, probably as a PDF from the Supreme Court site.

It doesn't really open the door to no-limit campaign financing. It says that the government can't put a limit on how much money a person or group of people (like the "Citizens United" nonprofit--hence the name) can spend to promote their OWN opinions.

There is a difference between 1) giving a political candidate $1 million, and 2) spending $1 million to shoot, print, and promote a documentary movie about a political candidate.

#1 is still illegal. And it's hard to imagine a way to limit #2 without giving someone the power to determine which movie (or website, or podcast) is "legal" and which is "illegal" speech about a candidate.

If we can't speak freely each other about candidates, how can we hope to have a valid political process at all?

Freedom of speech doesn't disappear as soon as people band together in an organization or corporation. The free speech of the corporation is simply the aggregate free speech of the shareholders in that corporation, and that's what Citizens United held.

The framers of the constitution never intended for the United States to become a massive welfare state, either. There's absolutely nothing in there covering programs like universal healthcare, social security, food stamps, et al. The framers very blatantly would not have supported such vast tax based subsidization of entitlements in which one citizen is forced to pay for another. They also would never have supported the total government cost in the US being equal to nearly 40% of the economy. Does that mean the US should end those programs and slash the government down to a fraction of its current size?

The absence of these items from the Constitution does not imply their opinions on the matter. The Constitution sets out a system of government, not a definition of how the economy should be run.

As to what you assert their opinions would be, you'd have to look at their own writings and find something to the effect; noting what many of the constructs you described wern't even being considered during that time. But that evidence won't be in the Constitution.

The Constitution lays out who's responsible for what, and who can make what decisions. It is not a bible stating the mores of the nation.

Yes.

The people whose jobs are to determine that say otherwise.

Aren't outlets of the free press primarily corporations?