Supreme Court Ruling Empowers Corporations More Than Labor Unions

Santa Clara County v. Railroad did not declare that Corporations are covered by the 14th Amendment and entitled to rights of citizens. It specifically held that it was not so holding. The headnote was not part of the decision and was contrary to the opinion. A headnote means nothing unless is is supported by the opinion. Santa Clara is not a precedent which supports corporate claims to such rights. The problem arose when other court opinions mistakenly assumed it was. It is on those erroneous opinions that corporations claim rights not given them by the Constitution. Read the case! Just type 'Santa Clara County v. Railroad' into your search engine. No U. S. Supreme Court opinion has ever held, in a contested case argued by both sides in which the question was actually involved, that corporations are entitled to any rights of citizenship.

Everette Carnes of NC 11:11AM May 15, 2010

“Corporate America” backed by their handmaidens, the “knuckle-dragger” four “Supremes” (plus one delusional Justice Kennedy) say as the Mafiosi before executing their enemies: “Nothing personal, this is just business!”

The extreme right wing-nuts of our country, along with the tens of thousands of Washington corporate lobbyists are popping the corks with the result of the latest Supreme Court decision on corporate fundraising contributions along with expectant political candidates that they can now with glee, purchase outright.

The four Neanderthals put on the Court based on their foam at the mouth “anti-political activism and issue relevant” decisions’ platforms gave a huge slap in the face to all Americans.

This latest decision trashes any semblance of “balance” between the repressive overwhelming financial power of corporate America, predatory capitalism and the common people.

Who in their right mind could imagine that along with mean-spirited politics of the last 30 years that now, whatever corporations wish they will get? And, make no mistake; it won’t be “in our interests.” To believe that you only have to have some knowledge of how (creeping, friendly) fascism works and believed that the German people along with democratic principles of pre-Nazi Germany would stem the flow of any injustices cast on them under Nazi fascism, after their “final settlement” with German corporations and their Supreme Court.

This country desperately needs electoral reform, but reform that includes barring corporations from acting as “individuals” which is farcical at best.

We are being brutally bound and gagged, cast into a corner, by Justices that advocate more anti-democratic corporate rule over our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

We are corporate political prisoners dumped into a Gulag.

No phrase in the Constitution says corporations are humans or individuals. Corporations are “created” by statute, not by natural birth. The interpretation came about through very perverse judicial neglect (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad). The perversion was instigated by a court reporter and never officially corrected.

Anyone who argues that corporations should be treated as persons and have the same rights would also have to accept that corporations should then be allowed to run for office, hold office, to vote in elections, and if proved to have acted unlawfully, be prosecuted under criminal law.

If accepted dogma that corporations are “individuals” with the same rights as humans, then why was this case brought before the Supreme Court? It would have been natural accepted fact that corporations did have the same rights.

James Madison, “The stock-jobbers will become the praetorian band of the Government, at once its tool and its tyrant; bribed by its largesses and overawing it by its clamours and combinations”

Justice Steven’s dissent, "At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."

Law should be a combination of precedent and common sense.

This was a decision by those who themselves virulently condemn “judicial activism.”

sierra7 of CA 1:54PM March 06, 2010

As a Republican, I am just as concerned with the Supreme Court Citizen. The fundamental principles at stake here are more important than which party will gain more. We must think about the long term consequences: a never ending pressure to remove all safties and precautions that protect citizens from corporations. I firmly believe that CEO’s and boards cannot represent the political beliefs of their shareholders and employees. For example, it is equally wrong for Google to contribute to Democratic candidates as it is Citigroup to support a Republican, when I know 50% of Google shareholders are independent or conservative, and 50% of people invested in the financial sector are independent or democratic. Corporations and individual rights are opposed. As a Republican I am for individual freedom, and I do not want to skew individual's ability to protect the common good (think consumers or neighborhoods): for example, corporations have an interests in weakening laws that regulate false claims in advertising, liability (think Toyota), zoning laws (should the way our community looks and feels go to the highest bidder?), weakening people’s ability to get any justice at all when their river is polluted. I am a conservative constitutionalist, and believe in small government. But I believe that government has an important role as a check and balance protecting citizens from the ever-increasing power of corporations. Absolutely, this is bipartisan. Republicans, let's start to group on this.

Al Davis of CA 10:22PM February 07, 2010

It bugs me that the GOP is suing Denver over a ruling that voters decided years ago. Republicans used to say "Leave it to the states" and "The feds shouldn't over-ride state voters". Now they've turned a 180 by suing Denver taxpayers and burdening citizens over a Federal decision. This is just twisted. The economy has tanked and they want to engage in a law suit that will not only cost Denver taxpayers, but hike up prices as well. In our product purchases, we'll have to pay more to cover the political donations made by the producers.

Ron Metzger of CO 5:28AM January 28, 2010