Originally Posted by indesertum
citizens united basically allows superPACs right? but i feel like when most people talk about it they're talking about corporations are people which from what i understand is totally different
yeah its a "citizens united" thing i didn't understand (in the video he goes on about how corporations are not people or some point rather vaguely similar to it
well I'm asking out of stupidity but what individual rights do you give up when you incorporate?
Ah, I missed the corporations as people point. I assume he used it as passing snark, because it's not really germane to the main subject.
Totally oversimplified, but:
1. CU basically held that legislation limiting political spending by corporations (among others) was unconstitutional.
2. There's a liberal talking point out there suggesting that in deciding CU the Supremes held that corporations are basically the same as people under the Constitutional and have exactly the same Constitutional rights as people (and more Constitutional rights than dames, who naturally have less). Not really accurate, but that's really the jumping off point for all the jokes and tropes.
3. It's not so much a question of giving up individual rights when you incorporate. It's more about how, and to what extent, the exercise of individual rights can be channeled through the corporation. But I think any attempt (including my own) to generalize at that level is so imprecise as to be almost useless. But (again, grossly oversimplifying here), the way it comes up in CU is something like this: You, as an individual, have rights under the First Amendment. Prior cases have held that the government can't limit how much money you, as an individual, can spend on "political expenditures", because spending money to get your viewpoint out there is inherently tied up with your right to free speech. CU dealt with whether the government can cap the political expenditures of corporations (and labor unions, and other groups), or whether the First Amendment makes such limitations unconstitutional just like they would be if applied to individuals. The Supremes' answer was "yes
", no, the government cannot impose such caps.Edited by lawyerdad - 7/10/14 at 4:34pm