• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

We need a 28th Amendment

betuadollar said:
it's an association of people. As outlined in the decision we also have mandatory disclosure. And if that proves insufficient then we need to revisit campaign finance law. It is incumbent upon congress to do, they have failed because they want the superpacs. They want every weapon, every legal option, at their disposal to win an election. And when that fails, they'll buy the politicians and the voters outright with cash, just as they used to.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS knows that Congress won't do that, and the reason they won't do that is the very cause of the problem.
 
betuadollar said:
That's not entirely true and you know it. What is fictional is the shield, the legal device, that insulates them from personal liability. It is still an association of people from beginning to end. We can take this even further; if it wasn't for the people there would be no need of incorporation; there would be no "corporations."
Click to expand...

If it wasn't for the State, there would be no corporations because it is the State that grants the charter for the corporation to exist and do business. So unless you think the State can create people, there is no way a corporation is a person entitled to the same Constitutional protections as an individual.
 
betuadollar said:
Test tubes I believe have proven quite effective.
Click to expand...

Which dodges the question. People have rights. Human flesh and blood people. A corporation is not a person.
 
The Penguin said:
If it wasn't for the State, there would be no corporations because it is the State that grants the charter for the corporation to exist and do business. So unless you think the State can create people, there is no way a corporation is a person entitled to the same Constitutional protections as an individual.
Click to expand...

Let's assume for a moment that corporations did not exist, that all businesses were merely associations, don't you suppose those people would have a right to voice a public opinion? Particularly so if they used private monies, not income derived of the business association? This nonsense btw goes all the way back to a video that attacked Hillary; do you wish to silence all derogatory political comment? Because that's what this would have entailed.
 
Last edited:
betuadollar said:
Corporations are certainly an association of people, whose members expect to individually profit in some form from that association.
Click to expand...

But despite that ridiculous ruling, bought and paid for like any commercial says: "by it's sponsors;" a corporation is NOT a person.

It is a business construct created in order to protect investors from personal liability in the event the company they've invested in is sued for any damages it may have caused during the course of business. It limits liability to the business funds.

YOU are a person. I am a person.

My car isn't. My insurance policy isn't. A contract agreement isn't. A corporation most certainly isn't.

The SCOTUS decision was as biased and ill-conceived as Dred Scott and Plessy v. Fergusson.
 
The Penguin said:
Right, and those individual members have their own Constitutional rights. The corporation does not because it isn't a person. So by conflating a corporation, which is its own legal entity, with an individual, you are making the argument that if a corporation is a person, it should be subject to the same Constitutional protections as one. So how does something like the 14th Amendment validate that?
Click to expand...

Corporations do have constitutional protections... and they certainly did after newspapers were established as companies. The question is whether they have a constitutional right to influence elections by dumping billions and billions of dollars into it. I don't believe they do, and neither do most people who have ever heard of the word "indulgences". However, it's a brand new world, we're no longer in the 15th century and pretty much everyone has forgotten one of the main reasons for the reformation.
 
Captain Adverse said:
But despite that ridiculous ruling, paid for like a commercial says: "by our sponsors;" a corporation is NOT a person.

It is a business construct created in order to protect investors from personal liability in the event the company they've invested in is sued for any damages it may have caused during the course of business. It limits liability to the business funds.

YOU are a person. I am a person.


My car isn't. My insurance policy isn't. A contract agreement isn't Nor is a corporation.

The SCOTUS decision was as biased and ill-conceived as Dred Scott and Plessy v. Fergusson.
Click to expand...

Yea. But do you want to know what's wrong with your logic? What's wrong with it is that the decision never said that a corporation is a person; it said that a corporation is an association of people. Politically minded people then created this false analogy. A corporation is NOT a person, it's an association of people. And we have laws that determine how that association as a corporation is permitted to speak politically, to include mandatory full disclosure and limitations on funding. It all makes perfect sense if you just read it. Again, those laws rescinded as unconstitutional need to be readdressed by congress.
 
Last edited:
betuadollar said:
Let's assume for a moment that corporations did not exist, that all businesses were merely associations, don't you suppose those people would have a right to voice a public opinion? Particularly so if they used private monies, not income derived of the business association? This nonsense btw goes all the way back to a video that attacked Hillary; do you wish to silence all derogatory political comment? Because that's what this would have entailed.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, let's not pretend and instead let's deal in the reality of today. No one is denying a corporation or whomever doesn't have the right to voice its opinion. All we saying is that if they choose to do so, they must disclose who they are. That's all.

For instance, Exxon funds a "group" called "Scientists Concerned About Climate Change", yet runs political ads saying Climate Change is not caused by people despite the scientific evidence that it is. That ad runs on TV and it says it's paid for by Scientists Concerned About Climate Change, not Exxon, so those who see the ad don't know anything about the group running it. So Exxon pumps billions through this group, a group that doesn't have to say where its money comes from, that is then broadcast and influences the vote.

I believe that lack of transparency undermines the fundamental principles of democracy. If these groups don't ever have to disclose their donors, how can you possibly take them seriously as they buy up airtime in order to saturate and influence the public with their message. A message that serves those behind these groups who don't want anyone to know who they are. If they have nothing to hide, why hide?
 
Hatuey said:
Corporations do have constitutional protections... and they certainly did after newspapers were established as companies. The question is whether they have a constitutional right to influence elections by dumping billions and billions of dollars into it. I don't believe they do, and neither do most people who have ever heard of the word "indulgences". However, it's a brand new world, we're no longer in the 15th century and pretty much everyone has forgotten one of the main reasons for the reformation.
Click to expand...

With a newspaper, you know who controls and owns it. With Super PACs, you do not. So when a newspaper editorial is written, that newspaper -which is published- discloses who the publishers are. With a Super PAC running a campaign ad, they do not disclose that information.

My proposed Amendment will give Congress the power to write legislation that forces these political action groups to disclose who owns and controls them so their political advertising is transparent.
 
betuadollar said:
Yea. But do you want to know what's wrong with your logic? What's wrong with it is that the decision never said that a corporation is a person; it said that a corporation is an association of people. Politically minded people then created this false analogy. A corporation is NOT a person, it's an association of people. And we have laws that determine how that association as a corporation is permitted to speak politically, to include mandatory full disclosure and limitations on funding. It all makes perfect sense if you just read it. Again, those laws rescinded as unconstitutional need to be readdressed by congress.
Click to expand...

OK, but even if it's an association of people, it still doesn't get the same Constitutional rights afforded to people. That's what we're arguing. The fundamental disagreement is that some believe artificially created associations of people are subject to the same Constitutional protections as a person who is a part of that artificially created association, and some do not. I happen to think that they aren't because an association of people isn't an individual person. It is an artificial creation. You cannot artificially create a living, breathing person with the stroke of a pen or a charter.
 
The Penguin said:
With a newspaper, you know who controls and owns it. With Super PACs, you do not. So when a newspaper editorial is written, that newspaper -which is published- discloses who the publishers are. With a Super PAC running a campaign ad, they do not disclose that information.
Click to expand...

I don't know enough about Super-PACs to know what exact guidelines they have for who controls and owns them. My point was that corporations certainly have constitutional protections. The degree to which those rights extend is what is in discussion not whether they have them.

My proposed Amendment will give Congress the power to write legislation that forces these political action groups to disclose who owns and controls them so their political advertising is transparent.
Click to expand...

I think this is a good compromise. They're allowed to be people, and like people their political contributions should be up for discussion. I mean, it's not like George Soros or even the Koch brothers are immune from having to disclose their donations. Corporations should be no different. I'd go even a step further and would have every single congressman sport the logo of these "persons" that fund them on their website or their suits. If there is no problem with corporations being people, then there is no problem with them being exposed like persons.
 
The Penguin said:
Here's the thing, let's not pretend and instead let's deal in the reality of today. No one is denying a corporation or whomever doesn't have the right to voice its opinion. All we saying is that if they choose to do so, they must disclose who they are. That's all.

For instance, Exxon funds a "group" called "Scientists Concerned About Climate Change", yet runs political ads saying Climate Change is not caused by people despite the scientific evidence that it is. That ad runs on TV and it says it's paid for by Scientists Concerned About Climate Change, not Exxon, so those who see the ad don't know anything about the group running it. So Exxon pumps billions through this group, a group that doesn't have to say where its money comes from, that is then broadcast and influences the vote.

I believe that lack of transparency undermines the fundamental principles of democracy. If these groups don't ever have to disclose their donors, how can you possibly take them seriously as they buy up airtime in order to saturate and influence the public with their message. A message that serves those behind these groups who don't want anyone to know who they are. If they have nothing to hide, why hide?
Click to expand...

Citizens United addresses mandatory disclosure. And I think consumers are relatively savvy. But if your concern is the endless financial transactions that obscure then congress should address that. If they can; I don't personally believe they fully can. Because I think there will always be creative people who formulate an endrun.
 
Last edited:
The Penguin said:
OK, but even if it's an association of people, it still doesn't get the same Constitutional rights afforded to people. That's what we're arguing. The fundamental disagreement is that some believe artificially created associations of people are subject to the same Constitutional protections as a person who is a part of that artificially created association, and some do not. I happen to think that they aren't because an association of people isn't an individual person. It is an artificial creation. You cannot artificially create a living, breathing person with the stroke of a pen or a charter.
Click to expand...

It's not a person, it's an association of people. And what we're discussing here is PACs, in relation to political speech, which are regulated.
 
Hatuey said:
I don't know enough about Super-PACs to know what exact guidelines they have for who controls and owns them. My point was that corporations certainly have constitutional protections. The degree to which those rights extend is what is in discussion not whether they have them.
Click to expand...

As I've said, I don't believe corporations or whatever have the same Constitutional protections as individuals.


I think this is a good compromise. They're allowed to be people, and like people their political contributions should be up for discussion. I mean, it's not like George Soros or even the Koch brothers are immune from having to disclose their donations. Corporations should be no different. I'd go even a step further and would have every single congressman sport the logo of these "persons" that fund them on their website or their suits. If there is no problem with corporations being people, then there is no problem with them being exposed like persons.
Click to expand...

Hell yeah! :)
 
betuadollar said:
Citizens United addresses mandatory disclosure. And I think consumers are relatively savvy. But if your concern is the endless financial transactions that obscure then congress should address that. If they can; I don't personally believe they fully can. Because I think there will always be creative people who formulate an endrun.
Click to expand...

You think consumers are "relatively savvy"? Come on, man. If that was the case, no one would smoke cigarettes at all! People wouldn't eat fatty foods! Everyone would wear sunblock and not tan.

A Constitutional Amendment declaring money isn't speech, corporations are not people, and those running for elected office must use public money to campaign wouldn't leave a lot of wiggle room, if any, for manipulations of the system. The reason is that Congress would be given the authority to impose whatever restrictions it wanted to impose on these groups, including full disclosure.

I don't understand why someone would not want to know who is funding the ads they are seeing on TV, or who is contributing the most money to these groups that run these ads. Don't people care? How can you trust that what these people are telling you if they won't even reveal who they are? And how does that not hurt our democracy?
 
betuadollar said:
It's not a person, it's an association of people. And what we're discussing here is PACs, in relation to political speech, which are regulated.
Click to expand...

Regulated how? Certainly not transparency, as that's what Citizens United undid. I'm not saying we should get rid of Super PACs...far from it. What I am saying is that those Super PACs and the like have to disclose who owns, funds, or controls them. That way, voters know who is behind the message they are conveying. I don't see how that undermines our electoral system or our democracy vs. not disclosing who is behind the message. Particularly if that message being delivered is political and influential.
 
The Penguin said:
No one is telling them to shut up. It seems you are fundamentally misunderstanding the Citizens United decision. It wasn't about silencing speech, it was about providing transparency for it. So that if someone makes an anti-Hillary Clinton movie under the guise of a political action committee, the people making that movie have to disclose who they are, much like how credits roll after regular theatrical films. The Citizens United decision removed that, which means instead of saying this movie was produced by so-and-so, it was produced by a nameless group called "Citizens United" and that group doesn't have to disclose who makes them up, funds them, or runs them. I happen to think that lack of transparency is not Constitutionally-protected. Which is why I want a Constitutional Amendment to clarify. I'm not sure why you would argue for secrecy in election campaigning unless you think that transparency will result in blow-back on those doing the campaigning. And why would that happen? Two reasons; because they're either lying, or because they are afraid of the repercussions of stating their beliefs. The First Amendment doesn't protect you from being criticized for what you say.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the person whom fundamentally misunderstands the ruling can be found in your nearest mirror. Again, I hope you will actually read the text of the CU ruling. It did not cover transparency at all other than to affirm that it was a good idea, and must stay in place. It was all about free speech. You seem to have the CU ruling confused with some other. The case that protects super PAC list is completely separate from CU. It takes very little homework to find it.

Here, I'll help you out. Here is the text directly from the ruling (with link): The court also rejected Citizens United’s challenge to BCRA’s disclaimer and disclosure requirements.

In several places, the Court upheld the disclosure requirements, and rejected CU's attempt to keep their contributions secret. Why do you insist on maintaining that the CU ruling abolished transparency? If you insist that the CU ruling does as you say, please quote the text that supports your position. And yes, we are looking for actual text from the ruling, not opinion text from a blog.
 
The Penguin said:
You think consumers are "relatively savvy"? Come on, man. If that was the case, no one would smoke cigarettes at all! People wouldn't eat fatty foods! Everyone would wear sunblock and not tan.

A Constitutional Amendment declaring money isn't speech, corporations are not people, and those running for elected office must use public money to campaign wouldn't leave a lot of wiggle room, if any, for manipulations of the system. The reason is that Congress would be given the authority to impose whatever restrictions it wanted to impose on these groups, including full disclosure.

I don't understand why someone would not want to know who is funding the ads they are seeing on TV, or who is contributing the most money to these groups that run these ads. Don't people care? How can you trust that what these people are telling you if they won't even reveal who they are? And how does that not hurt our democracy?
Click to expand...

Any Constitutional amendment should be constitutional. If a corporation uses money to create speech, then it is speech. When it comes to political speech, which relies by law on private donations, I think the electorate is relatively savvy. Any individual who does not see through the message, I believe, is relatively naive. I also think campaign contributions are a greater concern. But there is no way we'll ever fully contain any of this. Because there is a human element and everybody has a price, regardless of law.
 
The Penguin said:
Regulated how? Certainly not transparency, as that's what Citizens United undid. I'm not saying we should get rid of Super PACs...far from it. What I am saying is that those Super PACs and the like have to disclose who owns, funds, or controls them. That way, voters know who is behind the message they are conveying. I don't see how that undermines our electoral system or our democracy vs. not disclosing who is behind the message. Particularly if that message being delivered is political and influential.
Click to expand...

Citizens United did NOT undo transparency, in fact, it stressed disclosure. I think it's just writ larger today because people have more money.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
But despite that ridiculous ruling, bought and paid for like any commercial says: "by it's sponsors;" a corporation is NOT a person.

It is a business construct created in order to protect investors from personal liability in the event the company they've invested in is sued for any damages it may have caused during the course of business. It limits liability to the business funds.

YOU are a person. I am a person.

My car isn't. My insurance policy isn't. A contract agreement isn't. A corporation most certainly isn't.

The SCOTUS decision was as biased and ill-conceived as Dred Scott and Plessy v. Fergusson.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are a person, and I am a person. We both have First Amendment rights. Just because we join an association, we do not lose those rights. That is all CU is saying. That you and I don't have to shut up just because we join an association, even if that association happens to have a corporate charter.
 
natsb said:
Sorry, but the person whom fundamentally misunderstands the ruling can be found in your nearest mirror. Again, I hope you will actually read the text of the CU ruling. It did not cover transparency at all other than to affirm that it was a good idea, and must stay in place. It was all about free speech. You seem to have the CU ruling confused with some other. The case that protects super PAC list is completely separate from CU. It takes very little homework to find it.

Here, I'll help you out. Here is the text directly from the ruling (with link): The court also rejected Citizens United’s challenge to BCRA’s disclaimer and disclosure requirements.

In several places, the Court upheld the disclosure requirements, and rejected CU's attempt to keep their contributions secret. Why do you insist on maintaining that the CU ruling abolished transparency? If you insist that the CU ruling does as you say, please quote the text that supports your position. And yes, we are looking for actual text from the ruling, not opinion text from a blog.
Click to expand...


Because what CU did was invalidate campaign finance laws by declaring that these corporations' speech is protected under the First Amendment. In doing so, it gets to the "free association" argument you were making earlier, which gets to the transparency issue.

And no, 501c4's don't have to disclose their donors.
 
The Penguin said:
A corporation is chartered by the State. It cannot exist without the State granting it a charter to exist or a license to do business. That is how a corporation is not a person. Furthermore, all this amendment does is give Congress the ability to bring transparency to the political process by forcing those who blanket the airwaves with their messages to disclose who they are. If we know who they are, then we know their agenda. Then we can make an informed decisions as to whether or not we support that agenda. I don't understand why you don't want transparency? Don't you care who is telling you and your neighbors these things?
Click to expand...


Your attempt at straw man is noted and discarded. If you can show where I do not want transparency, I would be happy to burn the straw man.

Did you notice that you did not address my questions, yet you want me to address a position I did not take? I did.

Let us try again. If we remove the people from the football field, what would we be watching? Exactly what would this non-people team look like and do?

The reason the reason some don't want disclosure is clear. There are too many evil people on the left that would abuse the knowledge. Remember the newspaper that published a map with the names and addresses of gun owners?
 
betuadollar said:
Any Constitutional amendment should be constitutional. If a corporation uses money to create speech, then it is speech.
Click to expand...

No, it's not speech because a corporation isn't a person.


When it comes to political speech, which relies by law on private donations, I think the electorate is relatively savvy.
Click to expand...

Well, that is your opinion. I don't happen to agree, and I think the population is not savvy. I think the population is easily swayed by immersion. That demonstrably wrong facts become accepted because they saturate the viewers or consumers. They are not "relatively" savvy...and relative to what? Other democracies? No, they're not. Third World Nations? Maybe. Of course we have one of the lowest voter turnouts in the world, so it's not really easy to say that our voters are savvy. And if that's the standard we're setting, then we have bigger problems than just this.


I also think campaign contributions are a greater concern. But there is no way we'll ever fully contain any of this. Because there is a human element and everybody has a price, regardless of law.
Click to expand...

Well, I do say in my proposal that elected officials can no longer solicit donations...which means they campaign using only public money. So they don't have to fund raise and the issues can compete for voters instead of the politicians competing for money. Bribery, extortion, etc. is already illegal. And banning campaign contributions of any kind would close that gap that exists. At any rate, it would be better than what we have now, where most politicians spend upwards of 66% of their time fundraising.
 
The Penguin said:
Because what CU did was invalidate campaign finance laws by declaring that these corporations' speech is protected under the First Amendment. In doing so, it gets to the "free association" argument you were making earlier, which gets to the transparency issue.

And no, 501c4's don't have to disclose their donors.
Click to expand...

I read your response carefully, and still did not see the reference to the case text that supports your position. I took the time to specifically link to the text that disproves your position. Are you afraid your position may be in error? If not, then the proof is only a click away. Shut me up, and I'll apologize and go away.

I never said 501c4's have to disclose. Do you have a thing for straw men, or are you confusing my post with someone else's?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom