Nonetheless, there remains a vast body of both laws and legal opinions by the Court that purport to grant corporations rights they don't have in the final analysis. It may still be important for some to try to understand these lessor issues. However, we do not want to loose focus on our central arugment that completely fixes the levy and eliminates any possiblity of money to influence our governmental process -- that is to completely break the link between money and speech.
Article I. Definitions Relevant to “Free Speech”
Nonetheless, over the years there are a number of issues involved in understanding “Free speech” as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment in relationship to corporations. They all involve distortions of the original intent. Despite the fact that in the final analysis all such arguments have no constitutional standing, we will deal them anyway. If the reforms necessary at this point in our history are to be effective, all of the following must be considered in determining the solution:
1) As conceived by the framers of the Constitution free speech means individual persons’ [human beings] right to be able to speak one’s mind without fear of interference or reprisal by the government. There is little doubt that this is their clear intention. Everything that follows must follow logically from that premise and nothing else. Understanding and protecting this right legitimately allows both positive and negative inferences which can be directly drawn from the basic right – only that is what is protected and what is disallowed in order to protect the positive intent of the 1st Amendment.
2) Throughout our history, having no other options within our immediate control, the average citizen’s “free speech” is almost entirely limited in practice to being heard by those who are literally close enough to hear our voices. The wealthy on the other hand are able reach out to the entire nation and into the pockets of our representatives through the application of unlimited funds not available to the average citizen. This speech at least implies the following understandings:
3) Free speech as it was intended is not tied to any economic understanding involving the cost of determining the content of and/or delivering the speech. This is, in fact, “bought” speech in the economic sense of purchasing power, and has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment protection.
4) That is, the Constitution does not guarantee a right to spend money in either unlimited or unregulated ways – [a] not by individuals and [b] not by corporations.
5) If anything, the 1st Amendment implies that money should not be allowed to have more influence on public opinion that a citizen’s right to speak his mind freely.
6) Extending free speech to protect the public from corporations: The next understanding requires an historical perspective: At the time of the writing of the Constitution, there were no means of mass communication whereby one person or group could significantly control the means by which speech was communicated and therefore the ability to control the content of what is communicated [censorship]. This being the case, our founders also did not see the possibility of any entity other than government with its powers to enforce its own views making censorship a danger.
This remained substantially true until the last few decades as corporate interests began to buy and merge the media in all of its current forms – print, analog telecommunications transmitted by wire, wireless or optical fiber, phone networks, broadcast, cable, broadband, satellite and now the Internet itself… Centralization of ownership makes it possible for a mere handful of companies `[a] to write and produce and [b] therefore control the program content and context, [c] choose the personalities who convey the information, and [d] own or control the communication link which carries the content.
Corporations now have the dangerous ability to substantially control every aspect of the information through which the public is informed so completely that they are able to determine the basis on which public opinion and policy are formed. In this light, the definitions regarding the 1st Amendment need to be revised so that no individual or entity of any kind be allowed to have sufficient control over the content or delivery of speech to become a threat to the foundations of our democracy.
The next issue revolves around the definition of corporate “personhood.” Some argue that legislation defining corporations as persons for rational and necessary business reasons. These concern such issues as corporations can be formed [be born] and die through bankruptcy or dissolution, the right to sue and to be sued, to enter into contracts, own property, etc. Over time, laws and court opinions have extended the definitions. For instance, it has been argued that the “due process” protections of the 14th Amendment apply to corporations. We do not agree.
At the same time it should be understood that there have always been limits to the recognition of the personhood of corporations. For instance, the courts have always acknowledged that corporations cannot marry, vote or hold public office. Thus, it is already established that the personhood of a corporation is not absolute or without limits. It is further established that these limits can be established and changed by law and thus supersede any and all opinions of the court. Therefore, our new legislation must state that corporate personhood shall not extend to the right of free speech or to enjoy constitutional protection and that it makes null and void any existing laws or court opinions to the contrary.
Contact us: WeDontHaveFreeSpeech@outlook.com
p.s. If
you want to read or share our complete introductory series and other blog posts
about this and other issues, see our Annotated Table of Contents below. Or if you have questions or comments,
email us.
Annotated Table of Contents
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/sign-the-pledge-big-out?source=c.em&r_by=14960502
Insist candidates vote for a single act of Congress
stating: “There is no relationship between speech and money stated or implied
in the US Constitution and therefore no such relationship exists” as the basis
of further reforms to limit the abuses of Big Money interests.
Best summary of the proposed “Recover our Democracy Act;”
its Constitutional basis; removing purported legal objections, public financing
of elections, limits on campaign contributions, public funding of federal
elections, preprogrammed campaign website, redefining a bribe and much more
Cut and paste text to share by electronic media to spread
the word on our plan
Our appointment being ignored while lobbyists immediately enter
our Congressman’s office
Being on the outside: Explaining the meaning of our logo…the
corrupting influence of Big Money
Political contributions, Citizens United Supreme Court
Decision, “We don’t
have free speech. We can’t afford it,” our
solution is an act of Congress,
“Backdoor money in politics, quid pro quo, “anything of material value
offered or given to, or received and accepted by any candidate, incumbent or
governmental employee under any circumstance shall be defined as a bribe,” penalties defined for candidates and government
employees.
Our early commentaries: Free speech is fundamental to
democracy, different views, uses and limitations of free speech, public
financing of elections, fair and balanced media coverage
Original free speech: freedom to speak our mind, power
to “buy” both the “content” and the “delivery” of “free” speech, "personhood" of corporations,
Supreme Court and Citizens United,
ownership of the media, points of view, political advertising, educational content,
bought speech,…
Trickle down economics, tax reductions, income disparity,
deregulation, power by changing belief systems, abuses, distortions and lies, is
it regulation or just bad regulation?, affording governmental programs and high
taxes, millennia of struggle by the rich to retain control vs. democracy,
85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed
Citizens United
Humans speaking their mind
without fear, means of extending the reach of speech [meida], bought speech,
literally “free” speech decoupled from money, power of the media, corporate personhood,
limitations of free speech, campaigns and political speech, alternative communications
for elections: public financing, freedom of the Internet….
Figures on campaign
contributions given by largest lobbying corporations [6+ years old = pre Supepr
PACs]
One of our earliest posts:We don't have free speech
that has meaningful access to our own representatives. Our logo, our slogan, our chants, young adults, spreading
the word on the Internet, Obama’s election, making videos,
Largely unedited, free associated ideas on framing the legislation
Free public website designed
and formatted to conduct campaigns for office and public issues , FEC provided
bank account, and credit cards , campaign accounting system and
regulations, partial design specifications, real time public review access…
…the most logical
public space to allow the free flow of information on issues of public interest
“understanding the
power of corporations as a means of amassing power and money, the founding
fathers originally rejected the existence of corporations,” corporations
are not mentioned in the Constitution and have no protected rights; therefore,
Congress may limit or abolish corporations as deemed necessary for the public
good. Growth of corporate power, personhood of corporations and personal rights
attributed to corporations , theory of 14th amendment [due process]
applies to corporations,
No comments:
Post a Comment