Hi
I'm sorry that I don't know as much of your (ie. US) history as I should.
When I referred to your "founding fathers" I was thinking of the people who
signed the declaration of Independence and wrote your Constitution - and Abe
Lincoln was not one of them.
"government by the people .. " refers to democracy. Since the US (allegedly)
does not have a law to ensure that citizens can vote (per "movetoamend.org"),
you must first clarify if you actually consider the USofA to be a democracy
before I respond to your cites of "fascism" and "marxism" :-)
At this point in time I am in no position to debate the relative merits of
US political positions or various US television channels. I do, however,
have some experience in reading / deciphering long legal judgements, and
from the legal POV the majority ruling in Citizens United was
unexceptionable insofar as testing the constitutional validity of section
441 was concerned. It is a matter of regret that unfortunately some partisan
forces seemed to have used this decision as a "coathook" to hang / further
their own hobby horses and causes. Ultimately this can only weaken your
Supreme Court as an institution.
If you read the majority judgement carefully, you will see that the Judges
had considered your concerns on corporate excess and regulation - but
advised that the answers lay elsewhere - in corporate law and government
regulation, through shareholder intervention etc.
A few examples:
a) "In *United States* v. *Automobile Workers,* 352 U. S. 567 (1957), the
Court again encountered the independent expenditure ban, which had been
recodified at 18 U. S. C. §610 (1952 ed.). See 62 Stat. 723-724. After
holding only that a union television broadcast that endorsed candidates was
covered by the statute, the Court "refused to anticipate constitutional
questions" and remanded for the trial to proceed. 352 U. S., at 591. Three
Justices dissented, arguing that the Court should have reached the
constitutional question and that the ban on independent expenditures was
unconstitutional:
"Under our Constitution it is We The People who are sovereign. The people
have the final say. The legislators are their spokesmen. The people
determine through their votes the destiny of the nation. It is therefore
important—vitally important—that all channels of communications be open to
them during every election, that no point of view be restrained or barred,
and that the people have access to the views of every group in the
community." *Id.,* at 593 (opinion of Douglas, J., joined by Warren, C. J.,
and Black, J.).
The dissent concluded that deeming a particular group "too powerful" was not
a "justification for withholding First Amendment rights from any group—labor
or corporate.""
(My coment: J. Douglas and CJ Warren were eminent jurists whose decisions
are still cited today with approval)
b) "Assume, for example, that a shareholder of a corporation that owns a
newspaper disagrees with the political views the newspaper expresses. See *
Austin,* 494 U. S., at 687 (SCALIA, J., dissenting). Under the Government's
view, that potential disagreement could give the Government the authority to
restrict the media corporation's political speech. The First Amendment does
not allow that power. There is, furthermore, little evidence of abuse that
cannot be corrected by shareholders "through the procedures of corporate
democracy." *Bellotti,* 435 U. S., at 794; see *id.,* at 794, n. 34. Those
reasons are sufficient to reject this shareholder protection interest; and,
moreover, the statute is both underinclusive and overinclusive. As to the
first, if Congress had been seeking to protect dissenting shareholders, it
would not have banned corporate speech in only certain media within 30 or 60
days before an election. A dissenting shareholder's interests would be
implicated by speech in any media at any time. As to the second, the statute
is overinclusive because it covers all corporations, including nonprofit
corporations and for-profit corporations with only single shareholders. As
to other corporations, the remedy is not to restrict speech but to consider
and explore other regulatory mechanisms."
c) "Shareholder objections raised through the procedures of corporate
democracy, see *Bellotti, supra,* at 794, and n. 34, can be more effective
today because modern technology makes disclosures rapid and informative. A
campaign finance system that pairs corporate independent expenditures with
effective disclosure has not existed before today. It must be noted,
furthermore, that many of Cong ress' findings in passing BCRA were premised
on a system without adequate disclosure. See *McConnell,* 540 U. S., at 128
("[T]he public may not have been fully informed about the sponsorship of
so-called issue ads"); *id.,* at 196-197 (quoting *McConnell I,* 251 F.
Supp. 2d, at 237). With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of
expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information
needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their
positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their
corporation's political speech advances the corporation's interest in making
profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are " `in the
pocket' of so-called moneyed interests." 540 U. S., at 259 (opinion of
SCALIA, J.); see *MCFL, supra,* at 261. The First Amendment protects
political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react
to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency
enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to
different speakers and messages."
PS: Setting aside all the legal posturing. In most of my civic spirited
litigation activity I am up against corporates, very large ones who usually
file cases against me, and I believe it is important that one develops the
capacity to sift the grain from the chaff, and fact from opinion if one is
to "win" against them - or at least halt them temporarily.
Sarbajit
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Robert J. Cordingley <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Sarbajit:
>
> So I guess Lincoln in the Gettysburg address was promoting communism (as in
> government by the people etc.). Hmm. But glad you agree that corporates
> have the power. Last time I looked that was part of 'fascism'. Last time I
> looked it was the party elite, and not the people, that had the power in
> communism. I think you were thinking of marxism for which there are no
> 'good' examples.
>
> It's the job of government to reign in the excesses of corporations or
> anyone else for that matter (and not endorse or expand them). There's a
> novel idea!
>
> Thanks
> Robert
>
>
> On 5/15/10 11:49 AM, sarbajit roy wrote:
>
>> Dear Robert
>>
>> 1) Disbanding corporates and handing power back to the people is commonly
>> understood to be "communism".
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
