I agree that the first Amendment prohibits the government from
interfering with the inherent rights of citizens. I just don't consider
corporations "citizens." If they were they could vote. FRANK
Prof. Frank Askin
Distinguished Professor of Law and Director
Constitutional Litigation Clinic
Rutgers Law School/Newark
(973) 353-5687>>> "Bill Maurer" <wmaurer@ij.org> 1/19/2011 4:48 PM >>>
But "The People" are not individuals either--"The People" sounds like
a
collective. If it's only "The People" who have rights, then
individuals
do not. And what if "The People" decide to incorporate? Or does the
fact that only certain portions of "The People" go ahead and
incorporate
deprive them collectively as their status as individuals (who are not
"The People" collectively but who can vote), and as "The People" as
well, because they are acting collectively but cannot vote?
I kid, of course. You and I have a fundamental difference on the
First
Amendment. As I understand your view, you appear to view the First
Amendment as a positive grant of rights. If a positive grant is not
there, then the government may constrain the speech of anyone not
specifically listed. Thus, Citizens United is wrong. I view the
First
Amendment as a restriction on the power of government to interfere
with
inherent rights of citizens, which were "endowed by their Creator,"
who
may decide to exercise those rights in any way--or through any legal
entity or association--they prefer. Thus, Citizens United is right.
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Askin [mailto:faskin@kinoy.rutgers.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:32 PM
To: Sean Parnell; Bill Maurer; election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: RE: [EL] 12 Months After: The Effect of Citizens United
Who do you think "We the People" are? Or do you think it really means
We the Corporations? FRANK
Prof. Frank Askin
Distinguished Professor of Law and Director
Constitutional Litigation Clinic
Rutgers Law School/Newark
(973) 353-5687>>> "Bill Maurer" <wmaurer@ij.org> 1/19/2011 4:27 PM >>>
But individuals are also not given special status in the First
Amendment
and the First Amendment says nothing about individuals one way or the
other.
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Askin [mailto:faskin@kinoy.rutgers.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:25 PM
To: Sean Parnell; Bill Maurer; election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] 12 Months After: The Effect of Citizens United
Press corporations are no more "people" than other corporations, but
their special status is recognized in the First Amendment, which says
nothing about not abridging the freedom of other corporations to speak
OR try to influence the electoral process.. FRANK
Prof. Frank Askin
Distinguished Professor of Law and Director
Constitutional Litigation Clinic
Rutgers Law School/Newark
(973) 353-5687>>> "Bill Maurer" <wmaurer@ij.org> 1/19/2011 3:58 PM >>>
What about for-profit press corporations? Are they people? And what
is
the "press"? Will we have a commission that determines whether an
association of people is sufficiently "press-y" to qualify for
personhood? And is the ability to vote the standard by which
personhood
is determined? The New York Times does not vote and it influences
election outcomes.
________________________________
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
[mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Sean
Parnell
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 9:07 AM
To: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] 12 Months After: The Effect of Citizens United
Ran across the following in the Public Citizen report:
"Corporations are not people. They do not vote, and they should not be
able to influence
election outcomes. It is time to end the debate about the freedom of
speech of for-profit
corporations by amending the Constitution to make clear that
for-profit
corporations do
not have the same First Amendment rights as people and the press."
p. 27-28
Wondering how "Corporations are not people" apparently morphs into
'For-profit corporations are not people.' Are nonprofit corporations
people then? And of course there's the union issue, most of which
aren't
incorporated - are unions people? So confusing...
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp
124 S. West Street, #201
Alexandria, VA 22310
(703) 894-6800 phone
(703) 894-6813 direct
(703) 894-6811 fax
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
[mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Craig
Holman
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 11:18 AM
To: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: [EL] 12 Months After: The Effect of Citizens United
Colleagues:
Public Citizen has just released a report documenting the aftermath of
the Citizens United decision on its one year anniversary --
Excerpted press release and link to the report follows:
A year has passed since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission, and the damage is clear,
according to a new Public Citizen report.
The tally:
* Outside groups are making record expenditures (more than four times
as
much spent in the 2010 midterm election cycle as in the last midterm
election cycle in 2006);
* Congressional staffs and lawmakers are intimidated by corporate
lobbyists like never before;
* Laws designed to protect the political system from the corrupting
influence of money have been rendered dead in 24 states; and
* Power has shifted in dozens of congressional seats in races won with
the help of undisclosed outside money.
The 76-page report, "12 Months After: The Effects of Citizens United
on
Elections and the Integrity of the Legislative Process," reveals a
year's worth of damage done by the court's decision is available at:
http://www.citizen.org/12-months-after.
Craig Holman, Ph.D.
Government Affairs Lobbyist
Public Citizen
215 Pennsylvania Avenue NE
Washington, D.C. 20003
TEL: (202) 454-5182
CEL: (202) 905-7413
FAX: (202) 547-7392
Holman@aol.com
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law