Corporate Personhood
•Download as PPT, PDF•
3 likes•1,857 views
The document summarizes the history of corporate personhood in the United States, including key Supreme Court cases. It discusses how the 1886 Santa Clara County ruling established that corporations have rights as persons, and how the 2010 Citizens United decision found that restricting corporate political spending violates free speech rights. The decision is controversial as critics argue unlimited corporate money in elections undermines democracy, while supporters see it as protecting free speech. Proposals to reverse the decision include a constitutional amendment or campaign finance reform.
Report
Share
Report
Share
![Brief History ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommended
Canadian or American multinationals’ accountability in canada or the usa for ...
Should Canadian or American multinationals (MNCs) be held accountable in Canada or the USA for the human rights violations that they commit abroad? Why or why not? Illustrate your answer with examples.
Reaction to the Supreme Court’s Campaign Finance Decision
Susan Walsh/Associated PressThe Lede chronicled much of the reaction to the Supreme Court?s campaign...
Occupy Wall Street through Legislative Reform, NCPERS 2012
Starting with the Great Depression, legislative reforms were put in place to protect U.S. investors
Over the last 17 years, Congress and the U.S Supreme Court have stripped investors of much protections
In the current “Occupy” environment, sentiment may be running high for legislative re-reforms. This presentation discusses the Supreme Court cases of Citizens United, Morrison and Stoneridge and possible legislative roll-backs.
Corporations, Module II: Policy, Lesson 3: Political Action
Many laws have been passed over the years limiting the ability of corporations to participate in politics, but recent Supreme Court decisions have struck down many such laws. Corporations now enjoy new power to directly contribute to political campaigns. But has this changed politics? And, if so, for better or worse?
Recommended
Canadian or American multinationals’ accountability in canada or the usa for ...
Should Canadian or American multinationals (MNCs) be held accountable in Canada or the USA for the human rights violations that they commit abroad? Why or why not? Illustrate your answer with examples.
Reaction to the Supreme Court’s Campaign Finance Decision
Susan Walsh/Associated PressThe Lede chronicled much of the reaction to the Supreme Court?s campaign...
Occupy Wall Street through Legislative Reform, NCPERS 2012
Starting with the Great Depression, legislative reforms were put in place to protect U.S. investors
Over the last 17 years, Congress and the U.S Supreme Court have stripped investors of much protections
In the current “Occupy” environment, sentiment may be running high for legislative re-reforms. This presentation discusses the Supreme Court cases of Citizens United, Morrison and Stoneridge and possible legislative roll-backs.
Corporations, Module II: Policy, Lesson 3: Political Action
Many laws have been passed over the years limiting the ability of corporations to participate in politics, but recent Supreme Court decisions have struck down many such laws. Corporations now enjoy new power to directly contribute to political campaigns. But has this changed politics? And, if so, for better or worse?
9/9 FRI 9:30 | Combating Corruption By Being Ethical 2
Nancy Stroud
The training session will focus on the new fourth section of the AICP Ethics Code. Included will be a dialogue about the ongoing ethical code efforts in Broward and Palm Beach counties to help combat the political corruption that has sent multiple city
and county commissioners, and at least one certified planner, to prison. A must hear for all planners.
US Politics - Propositions in 2012
A subtle but perceptible shift in the United States’ political orientation took place in November measurable by the success of several ballot proposals from states as far apart as Maine and Colorado. Here and in Washington, voters approved constitutional amendments for the legalisation of recreational marijuana for the first time in the country’s history.
Ethics at Sunrise program - Missouri Bar CLE 5-2017
Legal ethics program for the Missouri Bar on recent developments. Presented on May 25, 2017.
Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionFor more than 100 .docx
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
For more than 100 years Congress and the Supreme Court carefully fashioned laws to check corporate power in elections. At first, the restraints were loose, but over the years they tightened. There were de- bates and a few dissents, but the nation never hesi- tated in its direction—until 2010 when five justices of the Supreme Court decided to reverse course. This is the story of their decision. It begins in the nation’s youth.
CONGRESS PROTECTS
ELECTIONS
In the American philosophy of self-government, free elections are an indispensable bulwark against tyranny. The founders believed all citizens should have the right to vote, that their votes should count equally, and that a majority should prevail. The rules in the Constitution bound the young nation to these ideals. The Founding Fathers also believed that if citizens were to vote wisely, they needed full, open debate on candidates and issues. The central purpose of the First Amendment, which directs that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” is to protect this debate.
In the early years of the republic the practice largely accorded with the ideal. The first challenge came right after the Civil War when violence and intimidation kept freed slaves from the polls. Con- gress passed two Enforcement Acts in 1870 and 1871 to protect the freed slaves’ right to vote and these were the first election laws. The Supreme Court eventually upheld “the [constitutional] power of [C]ongress to make such provisions as are necessary to secure the fair and honest conduct of an election.”1
A second challenge to “fair and honest conduct” in elections arose when industrial growth created pools of great wealth. By the 1870s railroads were already spending heavily for political favors. In 1873 Jay Gould, owner of the Erie Railroad, explained his businesslike approach to elections.
It was the custom when men received nominations to come to me for contributions, and I made them and considered them good paying dividends for the company; in a republican district I was a strong re- publican, in a democratic district I was democratic, and in doubtful districts I was doubtful; in politics
I was an Erie railroad man every time.2
As time passed, the amounts of business money in elections grew. So did public perception of corrup- tion, real and imagined. Standard Oil is reported to have given a check for $250,000 (about $6.4 million in current dollars) to reelect McKinley in 1900. In 1905 an investigation of New York insurance companies inflamed the nation. It revealed they had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars electing state and national politicians. A prominent Republican boss, when asked if these contributions bought favors, re- plied: “That’s naturally what would be involved.”3 The investigation also revealed a $50,000 ($1.2 mil- lion in today’s dollars) donation from New York Life to President Theodore Roosevelt in 1904. Roosevelt, who had s.
American Companies Unlimited
What Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Means for Companies’ Political Campaign Spending.
Citizens United Is Unconstitutional - Restore Democracy to The People
Visit http://americansforamendment.org/ for more information.
We are not affiliated with MTA, but, this quote is most applicable from https://movetoamend.org/voters-both-parties-object-supreme-court-activism "We’re fed up with the influence of Big Money in our political system. “If anything can unite Americans across party and ideological lines, it should be the arrogant and unprecedented Supreme Court ruling [Citizens United] that corporations [including unions, associations, and other entities] are “persons” with all the protections and rights of the Constitution. In a case trumped up by the court itself, five activist judges reversed 100 years of precedent to allow unlimited, special-interest money to be spent in our local, state and federal elections. Corporations [and other entities] are now free to spend unlimited money on behalf of a candidate they favor, or against one they wish to silence. No grassroots organization will ever be likely to raise enough money for their candidate to compete on a level playing field. Put simply in a New York Times headline, the story comes down to, “Lobbies’ New Power: Cross Us and Our Cash Will Bury You.” As moderate Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr. wrote, “The only proper response to this distortion of our political system by ideologically driven justices is a popular revolt.”The choice is simple. Will government answer to the people, or serve special interests? Will elections be an opportunity for the people to speak powerfully to their government, or will elections become competitions among corporate powers, unions and giant foundations to serve their own interests? And what if corporate interests are tied to an unfriendly foreign power? It is difficult to imagine how our democracy would be strengthened by a large infusion of cash into our political process from such governments as Russia, China or Saudi Arabia. Most outrage at this attack on democracy focuses on national politics. However, the ruling also nullifies protections against corporate domination of elections in the 23 states, including Colorado, that model their laws on the federal Constitution.”
More Related Content
What's hot
9/9 FRI 9:30 | Combating Corruption By Being Ethical 2
Nancy Stroud
The training session will focus on the new fourth section of the AICP Ethics Code. Included will be a dialogue about the ongoing ethical code efforts in Broward and Palm Beach counties to help combat the political corruption that has sent multiple city
and county commissioners, and at least one certified planner, to prison. A must hear for all planners.
US Politics - Propositions in 2012
A subtle but perceptible shift in the United States’ political orientation took place in November measurable by the success of several ballot proposals from states as far apart as Maine and Colorado. Here and in Washington, voters approved constitutional amendments for the legalisation of recreational marijuana for the first time in the country’s history.
Ethics at Sunrise program - Missouri Bar CLE 5-2017
Legal ethics program for the Missouri Bar on recent developments. Presented on May 25, 2017.
What's hot (18)
9/9 FRI 9:30 | Combating Corruption By Being Ethical 2
9/9 FRI 9:30 | Combating Corruption By Being Ethical 2
Ethics at Sunrise program - Missouri Bar CLE 5-2017
Ethics at Sunrise program - Missouri Bar CLE 5-2017
Similar to Corporate Personhood
Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionFor more than 100 .docx
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
For more than 100 years Congress and the Supreme Court carefully fashioned laws to check corporate power in elections. At first, the restraints were loose, but over the years they tightened. There were de- bates and a few dissents, but the nation never hesi- tated in its direction—until 2010 when five justices of the Supreme Court decided to reverse course. This is the story of their decision. It begins in the nation’s youth.
CONGRESS PROTECTS
ELECTIONS
In the American philosophy of self-government, free elections are an indispensable bulwark against tyranny. The founders believed all citizens should have the right to vote, that their votes should count equally, and that a majority should prevail. The rules in the Constitution bound the young nation to these ideals. The Founding Fathers also believed that if citizens were to vote wisely, they needed full, open debate on candidates and issues. The central purpose of the First Amendment, which directs that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” is to protect this debate.
In the early years of the republic the practice largely accorded with the ideal. The first challenge came right after the Civil War when violence and intimidation kept freed slaves from the polls. Con- gress passed two Enforcement Acts in 1870 and 1871 to protect the freed slaves’ right to vote and these were the first election laws. The Supreme Court eventually upheld “the [constitutional] power of [C]ongress to make such provisions as are necessary to secure the fair and honest conduct of an election.”1
A second challenge to “fair and honest conduct” in elections arose when industrial growth created pools of great wealth. By the 1870s railroads were already spending heavily for political favors. In 1873 Jay Gould, owner of the Erie Railroad, explained his businesslike approach to elections.
It was the custom when men received nominations to come to me for contributions, and I made them and considered them good paying dividends for the company; in a republican district I was a strong re- publican, in a democratic district I was democratic, and in doubtful districts I was doubtful; in politics
I was an Erie railroad man every time.2
As time passed, the amounts of business money in elections grew. So did public perception of corrup- tion, real and imagined. Standard Oil is reported to have given a check for $250,000 (about $6.4 million in current dollars) to reelect McKinley in 1900. In 1905 an investigation of New York insurance companies inflamed the nation. It revealed they had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars electing state and national politicians. A prominent Republican boss, when asked if these contributions bought favors, re- plied: “That’s naturally what would be involved.”3 The investigation also revealed a $50,000 ($1.2 mil- lion in today’s dollars) donation from New York Life to President Theodore Roosevelt in 1904. Roosevelt, who had s.
American Companies Unlimited
What Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Means for Companies’ Political Campaign Spending.
Citizens United Is Unconstitutional - Restore Democracy to The People
Visit http://americansforamendment.org/ for more information.
We are not affiliated with MTA, but, this quote is most applicable from https://movetoamend.org/voters-both-parties-object-supreme-court-activism "We’re fed up with the influence of Big Money in our political system. “If anything can unite Americans across party and ideological lines, it should be the arrogant and unprecedented Supreme Court ruling [Citizens United] that corporations [including unions, associations, and other entities] are “persons” with all the protections and rights of the Constitution. In a case trumped up by the court itself, five activist judges reversed 100 years of precedent to allow unlimited, special-interest money to be spent in our local, state and federal elections. Corporations [and other entities] are now free to spend unlimited money on behalf of a candidate they favor, or against one they wish to silence. No grassroots organization will ever be likely to raise enough money for their candidate to compete on a level playing field. Put simply in a New York Times headline, the story comes down to, “Lobbies’ New Power: Cross Us and Our Cash Will Bury You.” As moderate Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr. wrote, “The only proper response to this distortion of our political system by ideologically driven justices is a popular revolt.”The choice is simple. Will government answer to the people, or serve special interests? Will elections be an opportunity for the people to speak powerfully to their government, or will elections become competitions among corporate powers, unions and giant foundations to serve their own interests? And what if corporate interests are tied to an unfriendly foreign power? It is difficult to imagine how our democracy would be strengthened by a large infusion of cash into our political process from such governments as Russia, China or Saudi Arabia. Most outrage at this attack on democracy focuses on national politics. However, the ruling also nullifies protections against corporate domination of elections in the 23 states, including Colorado, that model their laws on the federal Constitution.”
Read Case 2-6 on page 59- Answer the question- -Should corporations ha.docx
Read Case 2.6 on page 59. Answer the question, "Should corporations have constitutional rights?" Why or why not? Please support your opinion with resources.
FACT SUMMARY In an attempt to regulate big WORDS OF THE COURT: Protected Speech money campaign contributions by corporations "The Court has recognized that First Amendment and labor unions in federal elections, Congress protection extends to corporations.... When Govenacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ernment seeks to use its full power, including the in 2002 (commonly referred to as the "McCain- criminal law, to command where a person may get Feingold Act"), which imposed a wide variety his or her information or what distrusted source he of restrictions on "electioneering communica- or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control tions," including an outright ban on issue advocacy thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment advertising or issue ads paid for by corporations confirms the freedom to think for ourselves. ... and labor unions. Citizens United, a conservative Modern day movies, television comedies, or skits nonprofit corporation, produced a 90 -minute docu- on Youtube.com might portray public officials or mentary called Hillary: The Movie, which criti- public policies in unflattering ways. Yet if a covered cized then-Senator Hillary Clinton and questioned transmission during the blackout period creates the her fitness for office. (Figure 2.1 depicts the poster background for candidate endorsement or opposiart that Citizens United used to promote its politi- tion, a felony occurs solely because a corporation, cal documentary.) The group planned to show the other than an exempt media corporation, has made film on cable TV during the upcoming 2008 Dem- the 'purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, ocratic presidential primaries. Before releasing the deposit, or gift of money or anything of value' in film, Citizens United brought an action in the U.S. order to engage in political speech. Speech would District Court for the District of Columbia against be suppressed in the realm where its necessity is the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the most evident: in the public dialogue preceding a real agency in charge of enforcing federal election law. election. Governments are often hostile to speech, The U.S. district court ruled in favor of the FEC, but under our law and our tradition it seems stranger and Citizens United appealed to the U.S. Supreme than fiction for our Government to make this politiCourt, arguing that the campaign reform finance cal speech a crime. Yet this is the statute's purpose law violated the First Amendment on its face and and design." when applied to Hillary: The Movie and to the ads promoting the film. Case Questions SYNOPSIS OF DECISION AND OPINION The 1. What if Citizens United had published a book U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court and cizing Hillary Clinton? Does the McCainruled in favor of Citizens United by a 5-4 vote. Fe.
Citizens United Presentation
Speech to Lincoln MA Town Meeting March 24, 2012 in support of constitutional amendment to eliminate the right of corporations to the rights in the Constitution that belong to "the people."
We The People Essay
The Phrase We The People
We The People Summary
We The People Unit 1 Essay
Essay on We Are All Equal
Essay on We the People
We The Peoples Rights
We The People
We The People Analysis
18 Congressional Digest n www.CongressionalDigest.com n Jun
18 Congressional Digest n www.CongressionalDigest.com n June 2020
“. . . the Electoral
College . . . no
longer fits our
nation’s needs.”
Continued on page 20
The Pros and
the Electoral
Should the United States change the way it elects presidents?
Honorable Steve Cohen
United States Representative, Tennessee, Democrat
Rep. Cohen, of Tennessee’s Ninth Congressional District, was elected to the U.S. House
of Representatives in 2006. Prior to his election to Congress, he served in the Tennessee
State Senate for 24 years. He has been a leader on numerous legislative issues including
civil rights, universal health care, transportation and education. Currently he is a mem-
ber of the following House committees: Judiciary; Transportation and Infrastructure;
and Science, Space and Technology. The following is from his Jan. 3, 2019, statement
introducing a constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of a constitutional amendment I introduced
today to eliminate the electoral college and provide for the direct election of our
nation’s President and Vice President.
As Founding Father Thomas Jefferson said, “I am not an advocate for frequent
changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with
the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened,
as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change,
with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with
the times. We might well as require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him
when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous
ancestors.’’
In 2016, for the second time in recent memory, and for the fifth time in our history,
the national popular vote winner did not become President because of the Electoral
College. This has happened twice to candidates from Tennessee: Al Gore and An-
drew Jackson. The reason is because the Electoral College, established to prevent an
uninformed citizenry from directly electing our nation’s President, no longer fits our
nation’s needs.
When the Founders established the Electoral College, it was in an era of limited
nationwide communication. The electoral structure was premised on a theory that
citizens would have a better chance of knowing about electors from their home states
than about presidential candidates from out-of-state. Electors were supposed to be
people of good judgment who were trusted with picking a qualified President and Vice
President on behalf of the people. They held the responsibility of choosing a President
because it was believed that the general public could not be properly informed of the
candidates and the values each held.
That notion — that citizens should be prevented from directly electing the Pres-
ident — is antithetical to our understanding of democra ...
18 Congressional Digest n www.CongressionalDigest.com n Jun.docx
18 Congressional Digest n www.CongressionalDigest.com n June 2020
“. . . the Electoral
College . . . no
longer fits our
nation’s needs.”
Continued on page 20
The Pros and
the Electoral
Should the United States change the way it elects presidents?
Honorable Steve Cohen
United States Representative, Tennessee, Democrat
Rep. Cohen, of Tennessee’s Ninth Congressional District, was elected to the U.S. House
of Representatives in 2006. Prior to his election to Congress, he served in the Tennessee
State Senate for 24 years. He has been a leader on numerous legislative issues including
civil rights, universal health care, transportation and education. Currently he is a mem-
ber of the following House committees: Judiciary; Transportation and Infrastructure;
and Science, Space and Technology. The following is from his Jan. 3, 2019, statement
introducing a constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of a constitutional amendment I introduced
today to eliminate the electoral college and provide for the direct election of our
nation’s President and Vice President.
As Founding Father Thomas Jefferson said, “I am not an advocate for frequent
changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with
the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened,
as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change,
with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with
the times. We might well as require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him
when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous
ancestors.’’
In 2016, for the second time in recent memory, and for the fifth time in our history,
the national popular vote winner did not become President because of the Electoral
College. This has happened twice to candidates from Tennessee: Al Gore and An-
drew Jackson. The reason is because the Electoral College, established to prevent an
uninformed citizenry from directly electing our nation’s President, no longer fits our
nation’s needs.
When the Founders established the Electoral College, it was in an era of limited
nationwide communication. The electoral structure was premised on a theory that
citizens would have a better chance of knowing about electors from their home states
than about presidential candidates from out-of-state. Electors were supposed to be
people of good judgment who were trusted with picking a qualified President and Vice
President on behalf of the people. They held the responsibility of choosing a President
because it was believed that the general public could not be properly informed of the
candidates and the values each held.
That notion — that citizens should be prevented from directly electing the Pres-
ident — is antithetical to our understanding of democra.
Similar to Corporate Personhood (12)
Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionFor more than 100 .docx
Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionFor more than 100 .docx
Citizens United Is Unconstitutional - Restore Democracy to The People
Citizens United Is Unconstitutional - Restore Democracy to The People
Read Case 2-6 on page 59- Answer the question- -Should corporations ha.docx
Read Case 2-6 on page 59- Answer the question- -Should corporations ha.docx
18 Congressional Digest n www.CongressionalDigest.com n Jun
18 Congressional Digest n www.CongressionalDigest.com n Jun
18 Congressional Digest n www.CongressionalDigest.com n Jun.docx
18 Congressional Digest n www.CongressionalDigest.com n Jun.docx
Recently uploaded
EED - The Container Port PERFORMANCE INDEX 2023
El Puerto de Algeciras continúa un año más como el más eficiente del continente europeo y vuelve a situarse en el “top ten” mundial, según el informe The Container Port Performance Index 2023 (CPPI), elaborado por el Banco Mundial y la consultora S&P Global.
El informe CPPI utiliza dos enfoques metodológicos diferentes para calcular la clasificación del índice: uno administrativo o técnico y otro estadístico, basado en análisis factorial (FA). Según los autores, esta dualidad pretende asegurar una clasificación que refleje con precisión el rendimiento real del puerto, a la vez que sea estadísticamente sólida. En esta edición del informe CPPI 2023, se han empleado los mismos enfoques metodológicos y se ha aplicado un método de agregación de clasificaciones para combinar los resultados de ambos enfoques y obtener una clasificación agregada.
What Ukraine Has Lost During Russia’s Invasion
An astonishing, first-of-its-kind, report by the NYT assessing damage in Ukraine. Even if the war ends tomorrow, in many places there will be nothing to go back to.
Resolutions-Key-Interventions-28-May-2024.pdf
‘वोटर्स विल मस्ट प्रीवेल’ (मतदाताओं को जीतना होगा) अभियान द्वारा जारी हेल्पलाइन नंबर, 4 जून को सुबह 7 बजे से दोपहर 12 बजे तक मतगणना प्रक्रिया में कहीं भी किसी भी तरह के उल्लंघन की रिपोर्ट करने के लिए खुला रहेगा।
Letter-from-ECI-to-MeiTY-21st-march-2024.pdf
भारत सरकार द्वारा बड़े पैमाने पर व्हाट्सएप अभियान चलाए जाने से डेटा गोपनीयता, नैतिकता और चुनावों की निष्पक्षता पर सवाल उठते हैं।
Acolyte Episodes review (TV series)..pdf
Acolyte Episodes review (TV series) The Acolyte. Learn about the influence of the program on the Star Wars world, as well as new characters and story twists.
04062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
03062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdf
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
Gabriel Whitley's Motion Summary Judgment
Here is Gabe Whitley's response to my defamation lawsuit for him calling me a rapist and perjurer in court documents.
You have to read it to believe it, but after you read it, you won't believe it. And I included eight examples of defamatory statements/
Recently uploaded (12)
Corporate Personhood
- 1. Are Corporations People? Presentation by Jeff Borg & Ryan Rasmussen Constitution Day September 17, 2010
- 23. Negative Reaction to Citizens United
- 24. Negative Reaction to Citizens United
- 25. “ Do you support or oppose the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that says corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections?” Source: Washington Post-ABC News Poll (February 8, 2010)