I have YET to see an originalist textual argument that the drafters of the First Amendment were speaking about corporations--although I have seen a lot of writing about how the Founders were not fans of corporations--AND thought they were strictly limited by their government charters to certain economic activities. Could anyone point me to writings showing that the Founders (as opposed to much later Courts) intended to cover corporations and not just persons?
 
Trevor Potter

________________________________

From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu on behalf of JBoppjr@aol.com
Sent: Sat 10/2/2010 6:08 PM
To: BSmith@law.capital.edu; election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] FW: Floyd Abrams & Citzens United


Now that Dr. Bozian has found out that he is completely wrong on what the First Amendment says, I assume he will now concede that he is in error and will withdraw his sharp, and now acknowledged unjustified, criticism of Mr. Abrams.  Jim Bopp
 
In a message dated 10/2/2010 1:52:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, BSmith@law.capital.edu writes:

	
	But if corporations aren't people, then physically they can't speak, so you will have no worries.  They will never, with or without Citizens United, affect an election.  
	 
	But maybe they can speak like a robot!  But would programming a robot to speak be protected speech?  I assume so.  Why? - because a person had to program it.  Indeed, we really already have mechanical speech, as when recordings play a message over and over, or as when a person posts a political video on YouTube that others can then watch.  I presume that a deaf/mute person would be protected in programming a robot to make audible political statements on his behalf that, he feels, would be an effective way for him to communicate. 
	 
	Of course, the reality is that corporations are made up of people, and people have a right to associate, and associations of people have a right to speak.  And corporate personhood does not stem from a decision that never examined the issue.  I know that's Tom Hartmann's view, but Hartmann is neither a lawyer nor an historian, and it's just not true.  The idea of corporate personhood has existed since the nation's founding, and is well grounded in legal theory, history, and precedent. 
	 
	Bradley A. Smith
	Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law
	Capital University Law School
	303 E. Broad St.
	Columbus, OH 43215
	(614) 236-6317
	http://www.law.capital.edu/Faculty/Bios/bsmith.asp

________________________________

	From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu on behalf of Richard C. Bozian
	Sent: Sat 10/2/2010 12:38 PM
	To: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
	Subject: [EL] FW: Floyd Abrams & Citzens United
	
	


________________________________



	Floyd Abrams has written a masterful exposition of the Citizens United decision. It is a  classical repetition of the fallacy of Xeno's Paradox which had the hare never catching the tortoise. One can justify anything by starting with a faulty assumption.
	
	He justifies the decision on the basis of the 1st Amendment. The  1st amendment  refers to freedom of speech of "the people". Corporations are not people anymore than  is a robot performing human feats. Corporate personhood is a legal fiction that emerged from an  interpretation of a court's deliberation  that never examined or even considered  corporate personhood.  
	
	I am impressed only with his craftsmanship. 
	
	Richard C. Bozian M.D. F.A.C.P.
	Professor Emeritus of Medicne
	University of Cincinnati.
	


	_______________________________________________
	election-law mailing list
	election-law@mailman.lls.edu
	http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
	


<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, 
we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, 
any tax advice contained in this communication (including any 
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and 
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related 
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii)  promoting, 
marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related 
matter addressed herein. 
 
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only.  It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law