decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Incredibly clear point | 393 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
A convenient legal fiction
Authored by: Ed L. on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 11:54 PM EDT
Indeed. Referring to American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock and Money, politics and Citizens United's fate, upon your point the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision was very, very flawed. A recent article in The New Yorker gives an hysterical overview of this travesty. The Court's basic reasoning was "Money speaks. Money is speech. Speech is protected by the First Amendment. Therefore money may be spoken in whatever way the moneyed person shall choose."

And, "Corporations are people too!"

But as you observe, that "corporations are people" is a convenient legal fiction. It is convenient because it allows corporations to enter the same sorts of contracts and assume the same legal responsibilities and liabilities as do people. That is very convenient. It is also a fiction. Corporations are not people. They are not of woman born. They live by the states, die by the states, and are regulated by the states. Further, the money corporations collect from sales of goods and services comes from real people who may have little choice as to who provides those goods and services, and/or little knowledge (and less say) about how those moneys are to be spent for political causes with which they may not agree. This gives the people who run the corporation a much louder voice in politics, e.g. by buying advertising space, than they would otherwise have were they spending money solely from their own personal income. Hence Dylan's admonition:

"Money does not speak, it swears."
I'd invite the Supreme Court the observation that profanity is not protected speech.

---
Real Programmers mangle their own memory.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Incredibly clear point
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 27 2012 @ 11:30 AM EDT

Corporations do not have a right to vote! Why should they have a right voice themselves in elections?
Imagine where a Corporation could vote... and fire any employee that "does not tow the Corporate line".

You might just as well change the voting Laws to say no private citizen may vote... Only Corporations may vote.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )