Interesting People mailing list archives
(Resend) Re: Supreme Court on corporate rights
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:03:59 -0500
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mary Shaw <mary.shaw () gmail com> Date: January 25, 2010 1:01:20 PM EST To: dave () farber net Subject: Re: (Resend) Re: [IP] Supreme Court on corporate rights
OK, so the flood gates are open to corporate contributions. Sunshine is a good antidote to shady dealings. So, how about(a) beefing up the transparency rules so the actual donor is shown, not the intermediaries with names involving "fair" and "wise" and "citizens for".(b) showing the biggest donors as part of the identification of the legislator, which is presumably provided so people don't recognize the name know who he represents. So instead of "Harry Reid (D-NY)" we'd see the identification "Harry Reid (D-NY, MGM Grand $153K, Weitz&Luxenberg $89K, Harrahs $79K)" or perhaps "Harry Reid (D-NY Lawyers $1700K, Securities $696K, Casinos $571K)"(data from http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009922 )Mary On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Dave Farber <dave () farber net> wrote: Begin forwarded message:From: Seth Johnson <seth.johnson () realmeasures dyndns org> Date: January 22, 2010 10:37:26 AM EST To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>, ip <ip () v2 listbox com> Cc: Paul Alan Levy <plevy () citizen org> Subject: (Resend) Re: [IP] Supreme Court on corporate rights(Resending -- the note that came through your list had only two short lines in it for some reason) Hi Dave -- for IP if you like. My comments on this case should be interesting to many on your list. Any given state could devise conditions for granting a charter of limited liability. This clearly sets up a distinction whereby rights of natural persons are distinct from whatever statutory "rights" state-created corporate entities with limited liability privileges possess — at the state level. You can simply apply the principle of fundamental rights of natural persons on their own or within associations, while understanding associations with limited liability privileges as distinct because of those privileges. At the federal level, it's a different beast. The real problem with this ruling is that it looks like a further extension of corporate rights, when actually it’s an overapplication of federal commerce clause jurisdiction, so that by upholding the rights of persons and their associations at that level, the ruling glosses over the unique advantages that corporations have as compared to natural persons. Rather than clarifying that the artificial beings given limited liability by states may be distinguished from natural persons who have ordinary liability under the law, this ruling is a further gloss on many years of federal commerce clause rulings from which corporations got their "rights," creating yet more misconceptions about the corporate form. I think the conservatives could have been flipped by questioning the dormant commerce clause presupposition underlying the precedents that supposedly gave corporations first amendment rights. As I noted in an earlier note to your list on this case, I think Clarence Thomas might have found that interesting. But in general that line of analysis would have appealed to the conservatives far more than what they characterize as dislike of corporations on the part of the liberal wing. It certainly would have forced them to think harder about the nature of the issue rather than issue this blankly unreflective "can't stand in the way of free speech" rationale that drives this ruling. I would not say the issue is about trying to silence speakers -- it's trying to gain recourse against artificial legal entities, even just to have it recognized that there should and can be such recourse. The left doesn't see how right now because they loves them some good rational federal laws pegged to the commerce clause; whereas the right doesn't see how because they forgot how we got here. What's perverse about this from the (modern) left perspective, is that it's from cases questioning those federal laws pegged to the commerce clause that corporations *got* their apparent "rights." At the same time, it's perverse from the modern right perspective, because states' rights and corporate rights have long been in inverse relationship with each other. Seth JohnsonArchives
------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- (Resend) Re: Supreme Court on corporate rights Dave Farber (Jan 22)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- (Resend) Re: Supreme Court on corporate rights Dave Farber (Jan 25)