Waiting for Fitzgerald

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is your firm incorporated? I thought that wasn't legal (and I don't think the rules apply to LLCs, LLPs, etc.)

No. I thought you were using the term in the borader sense. But I do seem to recall corporation's making political contributions to both sides as well. It may be to the DNC or RNC and not a particular candidate (if that makes a difference), but I'm fairly certain this occurs.

ETA: I think in CA you attorneys can incorporate under a professional services statute, but my memory is hazy.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
As a matter of the constitution, no. As a matter of state law, I think to grant them such is bad policy.

Query to which I have no idea of the answer. Most states bar corporate campaign contributions. So, CEOs often personally give large amounts of money. Presumably this money is given to them by the corporation for political gifts. Why is that not also illegal?

From personal experience, I am pretty certain that it generally is illegal to reimburse an officer for political contributions. There are also some people, such as bank directors, who may not be permitted to give at all. I am not sure why the latter point is not a first amendment violation, though I am told it is the law.

The idea of giving or using money in a given way constituting free speech really is an interesting one. Free speech clearly includes more than just speaking. It includes singing, writing, and, I would contend, other visible or aural expressions. If, however, I can say, speak away, but don't buy television time to do it, am I not limiting free speech? If I can limit what someone does with their money am I not telling them they can speak all they want - but just to their immediate neighbors? What do people think?

Of course, the federalists who drafted the constitution also drafted the Alien & Sedition Acts, so they would happily let government shut down a corporation or a private individual, particularly one who spoke against the government. I don't think I want to even try to figure out original intent jurisprudence on this one.

And, of course, I may just be melding the right to free speech and the right to privacy in my mind. It is difficult sometimes to keep them apart.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I haven't thought about the intricasies, but I certainly believe they do have some 1st AM rights. If the government has the right to penalize, regulate, etc. a corporation, or take away it's property, its seems to me only fair that the corporation have the ability to express it's opposition.

. . . tax . . .

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
. . . tax . . .

?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You just don't agree with the position. I'm quite confident you understand rationale.

I don't really get the rationale, qua speech. It's more like freedom of association. Anyone can pay to say anything they want, no? My problem is when they get to give money to others so that others can say more.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't really get the rationale, qua speech. It's more like freedom of association. Anyone can pay to say anything they want, no? My problem is when they get to give money to others so that others can say more.

Presuming that they can afford it. But that's the hitch. The public airways are not free, so those who have the same opinions NEED to band together in order to get their message out. Or, in Captain's lingo, doesn't the first amendment also protect group shouting?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Captain


The idea of giving or using money in a given way constituting free speech really is an interesting one. Free speech clearly includes more than just speaking. It includes singing, writing, and, I would contend, other visible or aural expressions. If, however, I can say, speak away, but don't buy television time to do it, am I not limiting free speech? If I can limit what someone does with their money am I not telling them they can speak all they want - but just to their immediate neighbors? What do people think?

Limiting a candidate's expenditures raises a different set of issues than limiting donations of others to a candidate so that he may buy better speech opportunities.

BTW, let me qualify something I said with respect to corporations. While they should not themselves have First A rights, I acknowledge that some people may benefit from hearing what they have to say. But I'm not troubled by Club's worry about inveighing against taxes and such, because most corporations have individuals who can speak on their behalf. Doesn't mean they should get to pay off the legislators to get their way.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

BTW, let me qualify something I said with respect to corporations. While they should not themselves have First A rights, I acknowledge that some people may benefit from hearing what they have to say. But I'm not troubled by Club's worry about inveighing against taxes and such, because most corporations have individuals who can speak on their behalf. Doesn't mean they should get to pay off the legislators to get their way.

[joke] Those individuals would probably be breaking some campaign finance law if they did [/joke].

And one man's payoff is another's representative government. Seriously, do you couch it the same way when the Teachers' Unioins, ACLU or Planned Parenthood gives $ to certain candidates? Are those organizations buying off the legislatures?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
?

I was adding to your list of what the state may do to a corporation.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
[joke] Those individuals would probably be breaking some campaign finance law if they did [/joke].

And one man's payoff is another's representative government. Seriously, do you couch it the same way when the Teachers' Unioins, ACLU or Planned Parenthood gives $ to certain candidates? Are those organizations buying off the legislatures?

The teachers' unions yes. the others no, because they don't have the money to do it.

There is, however, some relevance in the distinction between for profit and not-for-profit organizations.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The teachers' unions yes. the others no, because they don't have the money to do it.

There is, however, some relevance in the distinction between for profit and not-for-profit organizations.

I believe there are states that also prohibit contributions directly from labor unions, though most of the unions (like many corporations) have PACs.

[Captain]

Originally posted by sgtclub
[joke] Those individuals would probably be breaking some campaign finance law if they did [/joke].

And one man's payoff is another's representative government. Seriously, do you couch it the same way when the Teachers' Unioins, ACLU or Planned Parenthood gives $ to certain candidates? Are those organizations buying off the legislatures?

We are dealing here with lots of 19th century organizations but with a constitution drafted in the 18th century, before either corporate statutes or labor unions existed. To the founders, a corporation was a creature created by special act of the legislature or by charter from king, parliament or legislature, and it had only those rights which were specifically granted to it and no others. Corporations were few and far between, but represented very large and powerful interests.

But I am not a big fan of original intent jurisprudence, so I'm happy to see us extent some constitutional protections to cover entities that really came into being long after the constitution. And the first amendment simply prohibits congress from restricting freedom of speach, without saying whose speech is being protected.

But let me ask this, if Congress cannot restrict the speach of corporations, should it also not restrict the speach of non-citizens? Illegal aliens? Foreign persons who are just visiting? People abroad, such as those our military deals with in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do other rights accrue to such people as well?

[Captain]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't really get the rationale, qua speech. It's more like freedom of association. Anyone can pay to say anything they want, no? My problem is when they get to give money to others so that others can say more.

Is there a difference between giving money to a newspaper to run an ad expressing an opinion and giving money to a candidate to use in their campaign, perhaps in ways only very indirectly connected to "speech" per se (such as buying wine and beer for a session courting some potential big donors)?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The teachers' unions yes. the others no, because they don't have the money to do it.

There is, however, some relevance in the distinction between for profit and not-for-profit organizations.

I would characterize them all the same. What is the big distinction between profit and not? I represent a few not for profits - the executives there make far more money than many of my public company for profit clients. I don't the difference.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Captain
I believe there are states that also prohibit contributions directly from labor unions, though most of the unions (like many corporations) have PACs.

I'm not sure this is true either. A big issue in GOP circles is that unions often times use dues to support candidates who are not supported by a majority of the membership - at least that was the case a few years back. If I recall correctly, there was a court case in the last few years that spoke to this.