Illinois third state to call for constitutional convention to overturn ‘Citizens United’

[Roma_Victrix]

Illinois third state to call for constitutional convention to overturn ‘Citizens United’

By Brandon Reid
Senior Assistant Editor

Illinois has become the third state in the nation to call for a constitutional convention to amend campaign finance law to overturn the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling.

The Illinois House of Representatives voted 74-40 (with six not reporting) in favor of Senate Joint Resolution 42 (SJR 42) Dec. 3.

Locally, State Reps. Litesa Wallace, D-Rockford, and Robert W. Pritchard, R-Sycamore, voted in favor of the measure. State Reps. Joe Sosnowski, R-Rockford; Tom Demmer, R-Rochelle; and Brian W. Stewart, R-Freeport, voted against SJR 42. State Rep. John Cabello, R-Loves Park, did not register a vote on the matter. Pritchard was the only Republican to vote in favor of the resolution in the House vote. View the full roll call and find other details on the resolution at http://openstates.org/il/bills/98th/SJR42/.

With SJR 42’s passage, Illinois joins California and Vermont as states calling for a constitutional convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of amending the Constitution. Similar measures are also pending in Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Texas.

A constitutional convention can only be conducted after two-thirds of state legislatures — or 34 of 50 — call for such a convention. None of the 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution has been proposed by constitutional convention.

Amendments to the Constitution may also be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. This is the process used for each of the current 27 amendments.

SJR 42 cites the United States Supreme Court’s Jan. 21, 2010, ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission as the main reason for the convention. The Citizens United ruling found that, contrary to longstanding precedents, corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money to promote or defeat candidates.

Coming on the heels of Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled April 2, 2014, in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission that putting a limit on the amount of biennial financial contributions individuals can make to a national party and federal candidate committees is unconstitutional. Prior to the ruling, the limit an individual could contribute every two years to a federal candidate was $123,200.

Supporters of the effort to convene a constitutional convention have speculated that amending the Constitution may be more manageable through a convention rather than waiting for U.S. representatives and U.S. senators to change campaign finance rules on their own — rules many of them benefit from.

Whether created through a constitutional convention or a majority vote in Congress, a proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the states, or 38 of 50 states.

The last amendment to the Constitution, the 27th Amendment, was ratified May 7, 1992. That amendment delays laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until after the next election of representatives. Ratification of the 27th Amendment, which was first submitted Sept. 25, 1789, took 202 years, seven months and 12 days.

SJR 42 passed the Illinois Senate April 9 by a vote of 37-15. State Sen. Christine Radogno, R-Lamont, was the only Republican to vote in favor of the resolution in the Senate. Locally, State Sen. Steve Stadelman, D-Rockford, voted for the measure, while State Sens. Dave Syverson, R-Rockford, and Tim Bivins, R-Dixon, voted against it.

The effort to amend the U.S. Constitution via constitutional convention is being spearheaded by political action committee Wolf PAC. Formed in 2011 and announced at an Occupy Wall Street rally in New York City by The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur, Wolf PAC’s goal is to end “corporate personhood and publicly financing all elections in our country.”

Posted Dec. 4, 2014

Well then...this could really happen. With Vermont, California, and now Illinois on board for this, there is a very high chance that in a relatively short time we'll see a new amendment to the US Constitution, the 28th Amendment!

Corporations are people too, and money is speech, according to the US Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United. Think about that for a moment, the dangers of that. Basically, multinational corporations based in the United States are already buying our representatives by financing their election campaigns and super pacs. That means foreign shareholders in these multinational corporations basically have a say in who becomes the next senator in a state, or even who sits in the White House next as president. And if you don't think campaign ads are pivotal in winning elections, think again. This graph, made by the non-profit and nonpartisan group United Republic, shows clearly that 91% of the time the better-financed candidates win in their respective elections.

So basically, people (including foreigners) with money have speech, but those who don't have money can off, in the opinion of the SCOTUS.

What are your thoughts on this, guys? Do you think we'll get enough states to pass a new amendment to the US Constitution? Bear in mind we don't need those snakes in Washington at all. All we need is the support of enough local state legislatures to pass this. Democracy is cool like that, isn't it?

People love to gripe about how President Obama promised a bunch of change and how he was going to reform Washington from the inside. BWAHAHA! That's funny. The only time the government has ever lifted a finger to help the little guy was when the citizens banded together to make an uproar and actively demand change. Do you think the 1965 Voting Rights Act would have been passed if people hadn't taken to the streets, at the height of the Civil Rights Movement?

We're the only generation of Americans that hasn't passed an amendment to the US Constitution. Put down your goddamn Sony PS4 controller, wipe those Doritos crumbs off your t-shirt you've been wearing for the past two days, and GET OFF YOUR LAZY ASS, AMERICA.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

Well then...this could really happen. With Vermont, California, and now Illinois on board for this, there is a very high chance that in a short time we'll see a new amendment to the US Constitution, the 28th Amendment!

Corporations are people too, and money is speech, according to the US Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United. Think about that for a moment, the dangers of that. Basically, multinational corporations based in the United States are already buying our representatives by financing their election campaigns and super pacs. That means foreign shareholders in these multinational corporations basically have a say in who becomes the next senator in a state, or even who sits in the White House next as president. And if you don't think campaign ads are pivotal in winning elections, think again. This graph, made by the non-profit and nonpartisan group United Republic, shows clearly that 91% of the time the better-financed candidates win in their respective elections.

So basically, people (including foreigners) with money have speech, but those who don't have money can off, in the opinion of the SCOTUS.

What are your thoughts on this, guys? Do you think we'll get enough states to pass a new amendment to the US Constitution? Bear in mind we don't need those snakes in Washington at all. All we need is the support of enough local state legislatures to pass this. Democracy is cool like that, isn't it?

People love to gripe about how President Obama promised a bunch of change and how he was going to reform Washington from the inside. BWAHAHA! That's funny. The only time the government has ever lifted a finger to help the little guy was when the citizens banded together to make an uproar and actively demand change. Do you think the 1965 Voting Rights Act would have been passed if people hadn't taken to the streets, at the height of the Civil Rights Movement?

This Amendment seems like a very good idea to me; it'll be good for Democracy as a whole, and it's about the only way a third party can ever have a chance of becoming a political force (but that remains unlikely, even with this amendment).
As someone who has always had an interest in US history and the Constitution the idea of an amendment initiated by a Convention is a very exiting propect - I do like a good Constitutional Convention. Still a fair way to go it however, but I suppose if a critical mass forms the others will fall into line...

We're the only generation of Americans that hasn't passed an amendment to the US Constitution.

Look at the gap between the 12th and 13th Amendments; just saying. But to be fair that long a gap in passing amendments seems unhealthy if we look at the historical record...

*US Patriotism intensifies*

[Sphere]

The big hole in the current Supreme Courts philosophy on the topic is that large corporations (telecoms, pharma, automakers) are actually just maxing out donations to anyone and everyone who has a say on policy areas which affect them. E.g. AT&T spreads their money around, has a nice little revolving door going, and has 44 members of congress who own AT&T stock, and AT&T just happened to get their $48 Billion merger approved.

What the Supreme Court has said is that this money is actually a form of political speech, being used to advance political ideas and is therefor protected by the first amendment. As such, the only Constitutional allowed way to combat it is to have more counter-speech from opposing political viewpoint. But quite plainly this money isn't advancing any sort of specific political agenda. It is influence money, and is being combined with post-congress job offerings, and the fact that many members of Congress from both parties who actually own AT&T stock, to allow AT&T to give direct benefits to whoever is willing to take them,
Democrat or Republican.

Nowhere in Citizens United, nor the subsequent related cases, does the court address this very stark reality that when you let in such huge sources of funds you are not just promoting "more speech" during an election with opposing sides trying to advance their political ideas. You're allowing monied interest undue influence on the post-election, highly technical and rather non-public creation of policy. And they get this because they simply cut checks to everyone. It isn't speech, it is ritualized bribery.

[hellheaven1987]

People with money still got one vote each only.

[Phier]

If the democrats want it and the republicans don't then you need to follow where the money will flow the most if such a thing were to happen. They aren't doing it for the good of the nation.

[justicar5]

If the democrats want it and the republicans don't then you need to follow where the money will flow the most if such a thing were to happen. They aren't doing it for the good of the nation.

how does that follow? Banning the bribery of politicians by hostile powers is common sense.

[Phier]

how does that follow? Banning the bribery of politicians by hostile powers is common sense.

Oh thats funny, you think this would somehow make politics clean and not completely controlled by money?

The labor unions, perhaps a necessary evil in its inception considering the conditions workers had to put up with in the 19th and early 20th century, are frustratingly partisan in that regard, since Republicans have plenty of working class voters as well. However, we all know where the Republican bread is buttered, and that's by the support of the US Chamber of Commerce crowd. Still, Citizens United doesn't just help them and the various businesses they represent, it also helps the labor unions, because the same principles of no restrictions to expenditures apply to them as well! Labor unions aside, even businesses traditionally aligned with the Republican party have no problem whatsoever with buying a Congressional Democrat who's up for sale, as has been proven again, and again, and again. People are inherently greedy; belonging to one party or the other doesn't change that.

Also, overturning Citizens United wouldn't stop organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce or others from lobbying Congress as they've always done and should do as is their right. Overturning this ruling with a new amendment would simply mean they aren't allowed to drown us all in "speech" that indirectly feeds the pocketbooks and campaign committees of the politicians they're bribing.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Now tell me about buttered bread.

A demomcrat pac, and then unions are top spots outside of AT&T which donates to both. If you don't see why this is a problem, I got nothing more to say. This won't make the US a better place, it would simply be a way to drown out opposition voices.

Please lets not be naive here.

[justicar5]

Oh thats funny, you think this would somehow make politics clean and not completely controlled by money?



https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Now tell me about buttered bread.

A demomcrat pac, and then unions are top spots outside of AT&T which donates to both. If you don't see why this is a problem, I got nothing more to say. This won't make the US a better place, it would simply be a way to drown out opposition voices.

Please lets not be naive here.

it would reduce the power of corporations, which considering they are more dangerous to democracy than the KGB ever was, is long overdue. Contact with them should be treated the same way as meeting the head of the GRU or KGB would have been.



It would hit unions as well, ho-hum they can take one for the team. Opposion voices are already drowned out, that it why the Tea Party was allowed to prosper and the Ocuppy movement was beaten and harassed into silence.

[MathiasOfAthens]

If the democrats want it and the republicans don't then you need to follow where the money will flow the most if such a thing were to happen. They aren't doing it for the good of the nation.

What are you talking about man?

I dont think this will ever pass but are you seriously saying the Democrats are taking bribes to pass this amendment to stop unlimited spending in politics? The Republicans and the Democrats both take bribes from corporations through citizen united... Follow your own advice and check where the Republicans are getting their money for not supporting overturning citizen united.

As Union members are forced to donate to democrats (yes forced, you like working right?) you can see where they win here. Between those and the trial lawyers who have bought them completely, it would end up giving them an advantage over the Republicans.

Unions donate to politicians who support unions. If Democrats support unions and Republicans support dismantling them then why would unions donate to Republicans?

[Riverknight]

This is funny.

As an avid follower of Illinois politics and a campaigner for one of the sponsors ON this bill I can tell you that one word comes to mind when I read this.

Hypocrisy.

Almost every Democrat on this bill was HEAVILY financed by our current speaker Micheal Madigan. Madigan has been pulling the strings in Illinois since 1983 as Speaker, he has heavily finances his democrat allies and has been the most powerful man in Illinois since then, everything in Illinois runs through him! The ONLY reason this passed was due to him realizing that the whole operation is going to fall apart when he passes (he is 72 now).

Last election the Republicans had the highest momentum since 94' due to the mismanagement by the Democrats, our Governor Pat Quinn lost his election to a millionaire named Bruce Rauner and Rauner gave money to the Republicans to try and take a few seats from the Democrats, the republicans failed (largely due to Madigan outspending them). I believe Madigan realized the Democrats hold on Illinois is going to end once he passes, they scraped by this election and no leader is going to step forward once he is gone. The only person capable of keeping that hold is Chicago's Mayor, Rahm Emanuel but Rahm is facing his own problems in Chicago with his approval ranting and I think he might want one more shot at Washington.

This bill will make it easier for the Democrats to keep hold after Madigan leaves, they might not have the hold they have now, but it will at least give them their majority as most of the states population is relatively Democratic.

They did not pass this due to wanting more power to the people sorta thing... this passed due to simple Chicago machine politics.

That is not saying that some of these Legislatures actually want it though, I am sure they do! It just makes them hypocrites, I campaigned for someone who sponsored this bill, he/she got HEAVY funding from the DNC (Did I mention Madigan chairs that :p)

I think this overall is great though and am glad that our Legislative branch actually did something!

[mrmouth]

Last election the Republicans had the highest momentum since 94' due to the mismanagement by the Democrats

Change for the sake of change and yes, momentum. Midterms bring out old white men, and the Democrats had the worst turnout in decades. The simple fact is that the Democrats couldn't win this round, even in Illinois. They had no chance in red areas/states.


This sums up the "change for sake of change" mentality:

'Like It Never Happened': Public Shrugs at Midterm Results, Poll Shows

• More than three-quarters of Americans say the election won’t substantially change the nation’s direction;
• More say they have less confidence that elected leaders in Washington will start working together to solve problems;
• And Americans are split almost evenly between positive (41 percent) and negative (39 percent) reactions to Republicans controlling both the House and Senate next year.

A sampling of these short responses: “A good thing,” “About time,” “Complete disaster,” “Awful,” “I guess we’ll see,” “Indifferent.”

I think this overall is great though and am glad that our Legislative branch actually did something!

I believe it was Sphere who stated in another thread that Citizens United was the biggest obstacle we face. I dont care how or why, it just needs to go. It's ing scary that it was even possible.

[Derpy Hooves]

​I hope the Pennsylvanian congress will be added to this list of states

[Gaidin]

I'll be impressed when we hit 50%.

[Roma_Victrix]

Still a fair way to go it however, but I suppose if a critical mass forms the others will fall into line...

Well, it's not going to happen tomorrow, but if it continues at this pace, we're looking at a trajectory of years with a single digit, not decades.

It isn't speech, it is ritualized bribery.

It would be very funny indeed if someone actually thought that the politicians who take these legalized bribes give a damn about the concerns of their citizens (beyond looking bad in the polls). Clearly they are beholden to one interest only: the source of their campaign funding. And possible lobbyist career opportunity when they leave office or fail to get elected in the first place.

People with money still got one vote each only.

And we're so very grateful to our corporate overlords that they haven't yet decided to drop the illusion that we're all equal, when they can simply flood states with so much money that people hear one narrative and vote for that candidate. Most voters don't have the time to research where all this money comes from. They just see ads and find them convincing enough to be swayed by them.

If the democrats want it and the republicans don't then you need to follow where the money will flow the most if such a thing were to happen. They aren't doing it for the good of the nation.

That's just the thing. It's not exactly a Republican or Democrat thing considering that members of both parties are bought by the same monied interests, and the fact that in Vermont and California at least members of both parties (in the state legislatures) voted in unison on holding this convention. It turns out that, whether you're a Democrat or Republican, your decision to say "yay" or "nay" is affected by how many registered voters phone your office demanding change. In each case they were flooded with calls and petitions by people in their districts. It was clear that this sort of pressure swayed their decision to vote in favor. In the case of Illinois, as the article explains, one Republican state senator voted in favor of it, so it was certainly more of a partisan issue in their legislature.

This is funny.

As an avid follower of Illinois politics and a campaigner for one of the sponsors ON this bill I can tell you that one word comes to mind when I read this.

Hypocrisy.

Almost every Democrat on this bill was HEAVILY financed by our current speaker Micheal Madigan. Madigan has been pulling the strings in Illinois since 1983 as Speaker, he has heavily finances his democrat allies and has been the most powerful man in Illinois since then, everything in Illinois runs through him! The ONLY reason this passed was due to him realizing that the whole operation is going to fall apart when he passes (he is 72 now).

Last election the Republicans had the highest momentum since 94' due to the mismanagement by the Democrats, our Governor Pat Quinn lost his election to a millionaire named Bruce Rauner and Rauner gave money to the Republicans to try and take a few seats from the Democrats, the republicans failed (largely due to Madigan outspending them). I believe Madigan realized the Democrats hold on Illinois is going to end once he passes, they scraped by this election and no leader is going to step forward once he is gone. The only person capable of keeping that hold is Chicago's Mayor, Rahm Emanuel but Rahm is facing his own problems in Chicago with his approval ranting and I think he might want one more shot at Washington.

This bill will make it easier for the Democrats to keep hold after Madigan leaves, they might not have the hold they have now, but it will at least give them their majority as most of the states population is relatively Democratic.

They did not pass this due to wanting more power to the people sorta thing... this passed due to simple Chicago machine politics.

That is not saying that some of these Legislatures actually want it though, I am sure they do! It just makes them hypocrites, I campaigned for someone who sponsored this bill, he/she got HEAVY funding from the DNC (Did I mention Madigan chairs that :p)

I think this overall is great though and am glad that our Legislative branch actually did something!

While I don't doubt a word you say here, and realize in a cynical sense that that's how politics work behind the scenes, if the end result is that we finally get campaign finance reform, then so be it. Again, we should look beyond this as some Democrat or Republican issue, this is an issue that affects both parties and ALL Americans. Aside from Illinois, in both California and Vermont there were Democrats and Republicans who were both in favor and against this convention. Both parties are infected by money in politics. Even though the Koch brothers finance Republican candidates who look out for their business interests, that doesn't mean Democrats like Hillary Clinton aren't involved in the same game. She recently gave speeches for Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase that earned her $200,000 for each one! You think they're paying her because they like her ideas? BWAHAHAHA! No, they're buying her so that, should she ever become president after the 2016 campaign, she'll look out for their bottom line and shield them from legislation that would go against their interests or investigate them for fraud, abuse, etc.

Also, Rahm Emanuel, he's a disingenuous little sack of who was a complete poison pill at the White House. No offense to your state, bro, but people in Chicago are ing dumb as dirt for trusting and voting in that snake oil salesman.

[Big War Bird]

Funny fact about a Constitutional Convention - there is nothing binding it to one issue. It is is a free for all and everything is up for grabs.

I still for the life of me can't understand the outrage over Citizen's United. I can only surmise that those that object are either seriously misinformed or wantonly malicious.

This post:

[Roma_Victrix]

Funny fact about a Constitutional Convention - there is nothing binding it to one issue. It is is a free for all and everything is up for grabs.

That is the opinion of Michael S. Paulsen, in regards to an earlier proposed balanced budget amendment, although I'm not quite sure about it being a total free for all in terms of additional proposals. Paulsen is a professor in the School of Law of the University of St. Thomas, so I'd be curious to see the sources he used to obtain this idea. Perhaps it's an argument of his from omission, in that Article V of the US Constitution isn't specific enough about the procedures of the convention when and if it should ever be held? Since there's no precedent for this (as all 27 current amendments were passed through the Congress), it's impossible to refer back to previous experience on the matter for our nation.

I still for the life of me can't understand the outrage over Citizen's United. I can only surmise that those that object are either seriously misinformed highly concerned about the corruption of politicians by way of legalized bribery or wantonly malicious just patriotic citizens who care deeply about the direction our country is headed in.

Look! I fixed it for you. It's much better now.

[chilon]

Funny fact about a Constitutional Convention - there is nothing binding it to one issue. It is is a free for all and everything is up for grabs.

I still for the life of me can't understand the outrage over Citizen's United. I can only surmise that those that object are either seriously misinformed or wantonly malicious.

Its quite a huge ruling that relates to philosophy, politics and all sorts of issues if you think about it.

The ruling basically says that a complex organization's right to donate money (which is an action) has almost unlimited protection based on the Constitution's intent to protect a human individual speaking something out loud with their voice or writing something.

That is a rather gigantic leap in logic that started in the old "a corporation is a person" ruling in 1886 (Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific).

The problem with the Citizens United ruling from a philosophical perspective is that completely distorts what a polis even is. It takes the level of abstraction in some areas to a new level that naturally makes people (real life people I mean) wary.

Then of course, logically it raises a whole helluva lot of consistency questions. If a corporation is a "person" and they have their "free speech" protected in political donations, why can't corporations vote?

If a corporation is a "person" in some areas of law, why isn't it a person in all areas? That question could actually set a lot of precedents in the next 100 years with advancing technology. IMO its a dangerous precedent to allow corporations to be "people" for the convenience of a contemporary strategy beneficial to corporations but then the legal precedent is set to chop up "person" rights arbitrarily for convenience of a certain special interests.

[Big War Bird]

I forgot a third possibility - misinformed and malicious.

However I will give you a chance to explain your position and you need to answer this problem for me.

Please explain how fining and jailing people or association of peoples for political speech is less corrupt than not fining and jailing people for political speech.

[Roma_Victrix]

Please explain how fining and jailing people or association of peoples for political speech is less corrupt than not fining and jailing people for political speech.

Political speech is not a crime and (hopefully) it never will be. No one is stopping the CEOs of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase from jumping on a stage somewhere and telling us all their political views and how politicians like Hillary Clinton should adopt their ideas. In fact I would encourage every Wall Street banker and CEO, who are US citizens just like you and me, to exercise their first amendment rights and grab a microphone or, better yet, a giant megaphone and tell us all what they personally think the government should do. Somehow I don't think they'd get too many supporters cheering them on.

What is a crime, however, is bribery of said politicians under 18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses. Citizens United basically represents a massive loophole around that federal law and allows individuals or corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns with a little disclaimer that they somehow have nothing to do with the candidate they're touting. Whose back do you think they're scratching by doing this, and who do you think they expect to scratch their backs in return? This isn't rocket science, this is pretty straightforward and done right out in the open. The proposed amendment would simply close the loophole and cap the spending.

As for fines and jail sentences, we already have those for people convicted of receiving bribes. That includes the now former governor of Virginia Bob McDonnell, whose sentencing commences in January 2015. I think what he did was wrong and completely exploitative of his position of power, but, as a fellow Virginian, I also hope the judge doesn't punish him too severely. As for individuals and corporations who would hypothetically violate this proposed amendment should it pass via the convention, I would imagine penal sentences would be much lighter than those giving direct contributions to candidates (which is already banned by federal law as bribery). Technically speaking, independent expenditures aren't considered bribery because of the lack of a direct contribution. Those who would attempt to use employ such unlimited funding for political campaigns after the hypothetical amendment was passed to curtail and cap this, then they would be charged with a different offense altogether that merits a different sentence (jail sounds extreme, while moderately fining those convicted of this sounds about right).

As Union members are forced to donate to democrats (yes forced, you like working right?) you can see where they win here. Between those and the trial lawyers who have bought them completely, it would end up giving them an advantage over the Republicans.

The labor unions, perhaps a necessary evil in its inception considering the conditions workers had to put up with in the 19th and early 20th century, are frustratingly partisan in that regard, since Republicans have plenty of working class voters as well. However, we all know where the Republican bread is buttered, and that's by the support of the US Chamber of Commerce crowd. Still, Citizens United doesn't just help them and the various businesses they represent, it also helps the labor unions, because the same principles of no restrictions to expenditures apply to them as well! Labor unions aside, even businesses traditionally aligned with the Republican party have no problem whatsoever with buying a Congressional Democrat who's up for sale, as has been proven again, and again, and again. People are inherently greedy; belonging to one party or the other doesn't change that.

Also, overturning Citizens United wouldn't stop organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce or others from lobbying Congress as they've always done and should do as is their right. Overturning this ruling with a new amendment would simply mean they aren't allowed to drown us all in "speech" that indirectly feeds the pocketbooks and campaign committees of the politicians they're bribing.

[Big War Bird]

@Roma

I see you have firmly planted your flag in the misinformed corner.

The plaintiffs in the case sued the government because it had banned the public displaying of a documentary movie critical of a politician close to an election, a power granted to it by a 2002 law. Our government argued before the Supreme Court that under the law as it then stood, the publication of books that contained no more than a sentence of political thought could be also be banned. Which of course makes sense because there is no meaningful difference between a book and a movie as a means of mass communication.

Did you know that our government claimed so much power?

Are you familiar with the saying, "power corrupts?"

Because a funny thing happened prior to the Citizens United case. There was another political movie that wasn't banned, Fahrenheit 9/11, simply on the basis that it wasn't released so close to an election. And that raised some interesting points. Why was the law so arbitrary? What really is the difference between 61 and 59 days before an election? What is political speech anyway? Suppose a book alludes to the death penalty. How much is too much? Remember here the government claims that so much as one sentence of a book is enough to get it banned? It doesn't take a very creative to spin just about any work of fiction into a political allegory of some type. Maybe political speech is like pornography, you only know it when you see it? But isn't it the whole point of political speech to influence elections? We are supposed to be able to influence the opinions of voters and the policies of lawmakers. The law as it stood effectively made the time around an election a speech free zone - at least to those not skilled and lawyered up enough to navigate the treacherous waters of political speech regulation.

What the Citizens United did was to remove the power of government to make such arbitrary decisions. And I think we can all be thankful that this power was put down before it could do much harm. Even in the most well meaning of hands such power is bound to misapplied and slanted to one end or another.

It is also worth pointing out what Citizen United didn't do. It did not remove restrictions on direct contributions to candidates by corporations and did not change donation limits by individuals.

Not really, at least not with any intelligence behind it. Can a corporation argue that it is a virgin? It probably can, as in technically being able to, but it would be highly idiotic. The idiocy starts with providing free speech to corporations which I can also easily argue against it. For example, a man can say that he doesn't like Muslims or refuse to talk to them. A corporation can't do that. It can not refuse to service a Muslim. Corporations having free speech is one issue. Money being free speech is an other issue.

Corporate personhood is a way of simplifying legal issues. It is in so many ways efficient and effective to reduce the various people that make up a corporation into a single fictional "person." As Gaiden points out if you want to sign an employment contract the person of the corporation is responsible for upholding its end of the bargain, not the director of HR himself who retires a week after you signed. If you slip and fall in a grocery store, you sue the corporate "person," not the stock boy who broke the olive oil bottle. Of course it is not useful to think of a corporation having characteristics of a flesh and blood person, such as nearsightedness or virginity.

Now lets tackle the problem of speech.

Let's say I am an inventor. Let's say I have invented a device that will reduce government printing costs by 90% (or if you like I am claiming to be able to produce such fantastic saving). At this point you should be ok with me the private inventor asking my Congressman to consider my idea right? If the answer is no then your conception of business is stuck in the 19th century at the latest.

I have a problem though, I went to my local Congressman and even though I managed to see him, he didn't believe me. I just wasn't credible enough (I do dress like a WW1 flying ace after all) or maybe I didn't have enough evidence, maybe he was preoccupied and wasn't really paying attention. For whatever reason I failed. And I am out of money. I did manage to persuade my cousin though and he has some money to spend and a printing press that can show off my invention. So we are partners. Again you should be ok with the two of us going to see the Congressman right? We get our ducks in a row and go see the Congressman again. And dammit he just doesn't get it again.

For the time being we shelve the idea of selling our devices to the government. We instead sell our devices to newspapers. And it works. Our partnership grows and we hire some employees and form a "corporation." I haven't given up on the idea of selling my devices to the government though. Now I am confident that old Congressman will get it. But I am not going myself this time. I hire a professional political salesman, a "lobbyist" who knows how to talk to Congressmen, knows what interests them and knows who might be interested in my device. Hell I'm so confident that I buy adds that say Congressman X, please consider my invention or get out of the way! Now at this point you ought to be recognizing the boogey man of corporate influence. and you are no doubt foaming at the mouth at the thought.

But really what has changed? At what point did I shed my right to bring my invention to the attention lawmakers? The corporate person has rights because underneath the skin of the corporate person are real people. If you don't believe me go visit a corporation and you will find lots of people!