Moveon.org STFU

[jberryhill]

No First Amendment rights for this set of corporate entities:

"MoveOn.org Civic Action is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on important national issues. MoveOn.org Political Action is a federal political committee which primarily helps members elect candidates who reflect our values through a variety of activities aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election. MoveOn.org Political Action and MoveOn.org Civic Action are separate organizations."

[LoZoccolo]

1. I see what you did there. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

2. Text of the proposed amendment says nothing about limiting the politicking of any

organization, incorporated or otherwise:

Text:

Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

Section 2. The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.

[elleng]

3. 'The right to petition

the government extends to petitions of all three branches of government: the Congress, the executive and the judiciary.<87> According to the Supreme Court, "redress of grievances" is to be construed broadly: it includes not solely appeals by the public to the government for the redressing of a grievance in the traditional sense, but also, petitions on behalf of private interests seeking personal gain.<88> Nonetheless, in the past, Congress has directly limited the right to petition. During the 1790s, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, punishing opponents of the Federalist Party; the Supreme Court never ruled on the matter. In 1835 the House of Representatives adopted the Gag Rule, barring abolitionist petitions calling for the end of slavery. The Supreme Court did not hear a case related to the rule, which was abolished in 1844. During World War I, individuals petitioning for the repeal of sedition and espionage laws were punished; again, the Supreme Court did not rule on the matter.

The right of assembly was originally distinguished from the right to petition. In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court held that "the right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States."<89> Justice Waite's opinion for the Court carefully distinguished the right to peaceably assemble as a secondary right, while the right to petition was labeled to be a primary right. Later cases, however, paid less attention to these distinctions.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Petition_and_assembly

[Luminous Animal]

4. I see nothing in the amendment that prohibits MoveOn members from exercising their right

to petition.

[jberryhill]

6. What about Citizen United's members?

Please tell me you actually know what Citizens United - the actual organization - was doing.

Do you know what the case was about?

Let's recap, courtesy of the Wiki machine:

"Citizens United describes its mission as being dedicated to restoring the United States government to "citizens' control" and to "assert American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security." To fulfill this mission, Citizens United undertakes various educational projects, including television advertising and feature-length documentaries."

[Luminous Animal]

8. And the proposed amendment would do nothing to stop Citizens United from continuing to doing what

they did.

Just because people claim that the proposed amendment overturns the Citizens United decision doesn't mean that it actually does.

Read the amendment. Where does in explicitly overturn that decision?

[jberryhill]

9. Well, some people are pretending that this would impact the result of Citizens United

Hence, there appears to be at least one seriously flawed school of thought.

[elleng]

11. Good

[jberryhill]

5. Then so what does this do to Citizen's United?

You DO know what the case was about, right?

If you are saying that any organization can engage in unlimited political advertising, then you've reached the same practical result as Citizens United. They were making a political movie. That's what the case was about.

[Luminous Animal]

7. What it has to do with Citizens United will have to be sorted out through the next few decades...

building on case law with many fits & starts, inches forward and back.

I do know what Citizens United is about. I also know that the controversy about corporate personhood predated that decision by 100+ years.

[jberryhill]

10. Rofl... You just said it wouldn't limit corporate politicking

I had gotten the impression that the majority of objection to that decision was driven by a phenomenon which this proposed amendment would not affect.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. I've noted a few times that to gut CU was to gut MO

The proposed amendment wouldn't interfere with individuals exercising their 1A rights but as soon as those people formed a group with the intent of limiting their personal liabilities the government could write any law prohibiting them from speaking.

This does not protect speech, this silences it and it is a sword that can cut against the very progressives who endorse it.

[Marrah_G]

13. If I have to choose between The CU ruling being overturned and MO.org guess who I would choose

I would much rather see short, publicly funded elections. Perhaps then we could get people in there who would actually work for us, in OUR best interest. As long as big business funds the politicians, nothing will change.

[jberryhill]

14. The CU case is not about direct financing of campaigns

CU was an advocacy group that was making a film. The film was financed by corporate donors, and advocated for one candidate over another.

You can outlaw all contributions to campaigns per se, and require them all to use only public funding.

That doesn't answer the question of what outside groups, as opposed to the campaigns themselves, are allowed to do or not to do.

DU LLC is a corporate entity, in the main, advocates the election of democratic candidates. So, during a campaign, should DU stop operating, or should contributions to DU be suspended? That's the question here.

[No Elephants]

15. Are you really asking a question or are you using the Socratic method of teaching?

[jberryhill]

16. I'm trying to understand the goal

The general impression of the CU decision seems to be "it allowed corporations to make unlimited donations to political campaigns".

The CU decision is bad, but if that is the level at which the badness is understood, then that is unfortunate.

It's the same deal as the "personhood" shibboleth in the abortion arena. Roe v. Wade is not premised on whether something is or is not a "person" at any particular time, and saying that fertilized eggs are "persons" at conception, doesn't change the reasoning or result of Roe v. Wade.

I'm trying to understand the voodoo logic by which someone thinks that reversing a LOT of First Amendment cases fought and won by New York Times Inc. (Pentagon papers) or the roster of pornographers like Hustler Inc. who have the incidental social benefit of establishing good case law, is somehow a good idea.

If corporations don't have First Amendment rights, then Nixon should have been able to stop the New York Times Inc. from publishing the Pentagon papers. Now, every time I mention that, someone will say, but that is "freedom of the press", since they apparently don't understand that what CU was doing was making a movie. Okay, fine, if you want to redefine "making a movie" as not falling within the First Amendment right of "freedom of the press", then I guess we can shut down Michael Moore's production company along with Robert Greenwald's.

It's the bumper-sticker depth of reasoning that eats at me, I guess. Elsewhere in this thread, another person states that this amendment wouldn't alter the CU decision, when that's what people were primarily upset about in the first place.

At bottom the CU decision did not remove caps on donations to campaigns. What it did do was to remove a 90 day-before-election restriction on contributions to non-campaign groups whose activities may be viewed as a contribution in kind toward assisting a campaign. It was a bad decision, but didn't do what the majority sentiment seems to think it did.

[Marrah_G]

17. Again, and this is just my opinion, I would be all for it

If it meant politicians were no longer dependent on fundraising. In my humble opinion, the need to fund raise, the ability to fund raise, is the single biggest issue corrupting our society.