We the People does not mean "We the Corporations," just as it doesn't mean "We the Newspapers," or "We the Nonprofits." But it hardly follows that when people gather together in groups, whether business corporations, media corporations, nonprofit corporations, or for that matter partnerships, unincorporated associations, and what have you, the First Amendment does not apply to speech channeled through those groups.
In particular, the "We the People" argument applies equally to both the Free Press Clause and the Free Speech Clause. If it means that business corporations lack rights under the Free Speech Clause, it likewise means that media corporations lack rights under the Free Press Clause.
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:
election-law-
>
bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Frank Askin
> 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
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.eduhttp://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law