She says:
"The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election."
Then covers her ass with:
"It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions."
Who exactly incurred restrictions on the use of the corporate treasury? Stockholders incurred those restrictions. But stockholders had no essential rights as stockholders, except those defined in the corporate charter. Stockholders only exist because of a voluntary contract they entered into with the state. The effect of the ruling is to ban certain types of corporate charters, namely charters which restrict political use of the corporate treasury. The Supremes have told legislators that if they cannot limit the extent of these charters, then these charters cannot stand.
Handing human rights to corporate charters is the inevitable result, for it is the only path that Kennedy had available to him. Any other path would have constitutionally restricted the rights of legislatures to enter into contracts. Consider a private contract between two parties that includes a non-disclosure, a restriction on free speech. Legislatures would no longer engage in these contracts, unless corporations had some "human rights" exemptions that make them unique.
No comments:
Post a Comment