So if a corporation merges with another corporation is that a civil union? If they form a subsidiary is that a birth? If one ceases to exist is that a death? If they cause the ‘death’ of another corporation can they be brought up on charges of murder?
Remember Corporations, with rights come responsibilities. don’t go shouting ‘fire’ in a theatre!

The ruling is fair for those who approve of the message. Until they don’t. It’s so intellectually dishonest, why bother.

actually, GE was exempt, before They own NBC and MSNBC, so they already were covered under the old law’s free press clause…it was just corporations that didn’t happen to own media outlets that were stifled before. But, yeah, lots of corporations lean left, and Unions (don’t forget the political presence of SEIU) almost always lean left, too.

Citizen Mom, it’s worth pointing out that corporations do answer for wrongful death, and libel and slander, so in a way, yeah, your comment isn’t all that far off.

Just trying to inject some ironical humor. It’s a done deal, so there’s not much left to do but make jokes.d

Are corporations really persons?

Do corporations think?

Do corporations weep?

Do corporations fall in love?

Do corporations grieve when a loved one dies as a result of a lack of adequate health care?

Do corporations have loved ones?

Are corporations even capable of loving?

Do corporations sometimes lose sleep at night worrying about disease, violence, destruction, and the suffering of their fellow human beings?

Do corporations feel your pain?

Is a corporation capable of having a sense of humor? Is it capable of laughing at itself? (EXAMPLE: “So these two corporations walk into a bar….”)

If a corporation ever committed an unspeakable crime against the American people, could IT be sent to federal prison? (Note the operative word here: “It”)

Has a corporation ever walked into a voting booth and cast a ballot for the candidate of its choice?

We all know that corporations have made a mountain of cash throughout our history by profiting on the unspeakable tragedy of war. But has a corporation ever given its life for its country?

Is a corporation capable of raising a child?

Has a corporation ever been killed in an accident as the result of a design flaw in the automobile it was driving?

Has a corporation ever written a novel or a dramatic play or a song that inspired millions?

Has a corporation ever risked its life by climbing a ladder to save a child from a burning house?

Has a corporation ever won an Oscar? Or an Emmy? Or a Tony? Or the Nobel Peace Prize? Or a Polk or Peabody Award? Or the Pulitzer Prize in Biography?

Has a corporation ever performed Schubert’s Ave Maria?

Has a corporation ever been shot and killed by someone who was using an illegal and unregistered gun?

Has a corporation ever paused to reflect upon the simple beauty of an autumn sunset or a brilliant winter moon rising in the horizon?

If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a noise if there are no corporations there to hear it?

Should corporations kiss on the first date?

Could a corporation resolve to dedicate its vocation to being an artist? Or a musician? Or an opera singer? Or a Catholic priest? Or a Doctor? Or a Dentist? Or a sheet metal worker? Or a gourmet chef? Or a short-order cook? Or a magician? Or a nurse? Or a trapeze artist? Or an author? Or an editor? Or a Thrift Shop owner? Or a EMT worker? Or a book binder? Or a Hardware Store clerk? Or a funeral director? Or a sanitation worker? Or an actor? Or a comedian? Or a glass blower? Or a chamber maid? Or a film director? Or a newspaper reporter? Or a deep sea fisherman? Or a farmer? Or a piano tuner? Or a jeweler? Or a janitor? Or a nun? Or a Trappist Monk? Or a poet? Or a pilgrim? Or a bar tender? Or a used car salesman? Or a brick layer? Or a mayor? Or a soothsayer? Or a Hall-of-Fame football player? Or a soldier? Or a sailor? Or a butcher? Or a baker? Or a candlestick maker?

Could a corporation choose to opt out of all the above and merely become a bum? Living life on the road, hopping freight trains and roasting mickeys in the woods?

I realize that this is pure theological speculation on my part but the question is just screaming to be posed: When corporations die, do they go to Heaven?

Our lives – yours and mine – have more worth than any damned corporation. The Supreme Court’s decision on Thursday was beyond wrongheaded. Not only was it obscene – it was an insult to our humanity.

http://wwww.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

last I checked, people old enough to vote do have the ability to think for themselves even in the face of “crushing” political advertisement.

As far as whether a corporation is a person, of course it’s not—but it is a group of people, who all share a similar interest, just like AARP or PETA or a PAC or anyone else. GROUPS of people (all of whom can do any of the ‘human’ things Tom Degan mentioned) have always had constitutionally recognized rights to put their voices (in the form of chant) or their money (in a PAC or just pooling money to buy a sign or bunch of t-shirts or anything) together to support any cause they choose.
A corporation after all, is made up of shareholders, who are all human, so how is that any different than a PAC, made up of members, who are all human?
Laws against fraud, libel, slander etc. still apply, and now instead of coming in the back door (like the insurance companies and pharmaceutical giants who sponsered Coakley’s fundraisers) a corporation will now follow the same advertising rules as a PAC—they’ll take out an ad that says something political and then there will be a disclaimer saying ‘this ad paid for by X’. Also, people did an excellent job of tracking down political donors and boycotting in the aftermath of Prop 8, this time instead of mucking around with personal donors, you can directly target the big corporations that support something you disagree with.

They earned the money, why not let them spend it how they want? And right now, lobbying (evil) happens behind closed doors, NOW, this ruling provides an above-board alternative to lobbying. The advertising negative or otherwise will be totally open to the public’s scrutiny.

For the last 63 years media-owning corporations have had this sway over law-makers….NY Times and other papers routinely endorse candidates and make clear through op-eds and outright statements what a candidate would have to support in order to gain the endorsement of a paper. Furthermore, media outlets because they already own the advertising space are free to give free or discounted ad space to causes and candidates they agree with. So why not non-media-based corporations?

Keep in mind, too, this decision was supported by AFL-CIO and the ACLU—hardly apologists for capitalism or conservatism—-and the ruling specifically adresses labor unions and non-PAC nonprofits (like PETA or AARP or NAACP or La-freaking-Raza for that matter) having their spending caps lifted as well. People are focusing on the corporations, but the gist of the ruling is “if you earned or raised the money yourselves, put it into advertising campaign you want and let the voters hear everything that everyone has to say”. Free speech.

Well, anyone who wants to give as an individual and as part of a corporation can also give through a PAC or any of the other nonprofit corporations also affected by this ruling—Again, such “evil” corporations as PETA, La Raza, LULAC, NAACP, the ACLU, Citizens United, GLAAD, SEIU, Greenpeace….or he or she can start his or her own coporation, free marketplace of ideas and all that. Also, some of these “animals” to go on your Orwell theme, were more equal than others before. Media outlets were corporations, too, but they could pay someone like Bill O’Reilly or Keith Olbermann to shill for their prefered candidate or run pages of op eds or give prefered groups lower rates for ads once they’d reached their corporate donation limit, while a corporation or union that wasn’t in media had to stick to an arbitrary number that typically precluded them from taking out their own ads.

Besides, the old law had limits for personal donors, and limits for corporate donors, but nothing preventing a person from donating both as a private citizen and through his or her corporation. Tom Hanks, in the last election, donated the max amount to each of the dem frontrunners as a private citizen and then donated the corporate max again to each through his production company. I’m of the mind that there oughtn’t be a max amount for personal donations, either, just plenty of disclosure. We might even (gasp) have third party candidate with half a chance that way, or maybe a candidate wouldn’t have to already be well-off to run for a Senate seat. After all, there was never a limit on how much of one’s own money could be spent on one’s own campaign, and campaigns being as expensive as they are, in much of the country all but the very wealthy are effectively priced out of running for public office. Look at Michael Bloomberg—he didn’t get near as much in donations as he spent of his own money.