Corporate Free Speech

Mitch McConnell wrote:Thank you for contacting me regarding the finance of elections. Hearing your views helps me represent Kentucky in the United States Senate.

In your correspondence, you expressed your thoughts regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case of Citizen's United v. Federal Election Commission. In the decision, the Supreme Court held that Congress may not discriminate in limiting speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity. The Court also upheld restrictions on giving to candidates as well as disclosure and disclaimer requirements in regulating political speech.

Since my arrival in the United States Senate, I have strongly supported the First Amendment rights of citizens to lawfully endorse and support political candidates. By ruling that the U.S. Constitution protects their right to express themselves, the Supreme Court took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of certain groups. By previously denying this right, the government was picking winners and losers. Our democracy depends on free speech, not just for some but for all. Vibrant democratic debate requires more political speech, not less.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please continue to keep me informed of issues important to you.

Sincerely,

(signiture)

MITCH McCONNELL
UNITED STATES SENATOR

MM/ah

Ted Nace wrote:What legal rationales has the Supreme Court relied upon to estab-
lish corporate rights? How well do those rationales stand up to an audit
of their logical coherence?

At first glance, the Supreme Court’s development of corporate
rights has the appearance of an orderly and careful progression. It be-
gins with the foundation decision in the 1886 Santa Clara case declar-
ing corporations to be entitled to the same “equal protection” as persons
under the Fourteenth Amendment. Then, over the course of the follow-
ing century, the Court examines first one case and then another, gradu-
ally expanding the set of corporate rights. (The entire “corporate bill of
rights” is shown in Table 1.1.)

That image of coherence and care is deceptive. The judicial rea-
soning that underlies the creation of corporate rights has cracks--deep
internal inconsistencies. Unfortunately, the process by which the Su-
preme Court builds a body of jurisprudence out of multiple decisions
does not serve to expose these sorts of cracks, but rather to hide them.
With the passage of time, the defective old bricks acquire a sheen of
legitimacy, weathering into handsome, venerable foundations

Youthinasia wrote:Yes I think that the Santa Clara decision is the real issue here, which is the fallacy of corporate personhood. Which in both reality and in effect is basically those who want to incorporate saying to government "Look, we'll give you an entity to tax, provided you grant us special privileges where we can escape liability in the marketplace." effectively giving the corporation more rights than a real flesh and blood human being in exchange for tax revenue, which in the modern pro business, state capitalist system amounts to some corporations now having negative tax burdens.

Youthinasia wrote:
As for a solution, I've heard some convincing arguments put forth by Kevin Carson on creating legal tools on piercing the corporate veil. But I think the only real solution is to create a new separate market entity for the corporation that does not grant it human rights, and prevents it from being subsidized or protected by the government.