Citizens United (again?)

Malla Pollack mallapollack3 at gmail.com
Mon Sep 27 10:38:33 PDT 2010


I, for one, carefully distinguish among types of group structures.  Some
points made by the students of institutional organization fit all, but not
all.  A corporation's announced purpose is to make money -- this is quite
different from a union which alleges that it exists to protect its human
members, or a church which exists to help its human members interact with a
moral deity, or a club which exists for socialization of human members or to
help them express a shared view point.  Therefore, many groups indirectly
represent people's human goals, corporations do not -- they represent a
nexus of contracts (or property, or organized hierarchies) for the purpose
of increasing capital and producing profits.  I recommend Richard Reich's
recent book Supercapitalism which discusses the increased pressure on
corporations to make more and more profits now that trade is more global and
the post WWII oligarchies (eg the big 3 auto makers) are no longer able to
act for reasons other than remaining competitively profitable.
Malla

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Marc R Poirier <Marc.Poirier at shu.edu>wrote:

>  I believe that almost all individuals are hardwired to have empathy.
> (Some individuals with certain personality disorders may not.)  One can take
> it as a matter of religious faith, if you want (I do, I’m a Buddhist), or of
> neuroscience.  Corporations are fictive entities (not that that belies their
> importance) and the group interactions among human beings that result in
> corporate decisionmaking, once you get past the closely held corporation, I
> suspect have dynamics that suppress some of the instinctive empathy
> individuals might otherwise  allow themselves.  bureaucratic structures do
> the same thing.  I’m not an expert in this area, but it seems obvious to
> me.  Anyone care to help out here?
>
>
>
> I suspect part of your point, which has some validity, is that in the
> context of major political campaigns everything is filtered through group
> structures.
>
>
>
> So my point may be more germane to political theory than to campaign
> finance reform.
>
> *From:* Raymond Kessler [mailto:rkessler at sulross.edu]
> *Sent:* Monday, September 27, 2010 1:18 PM
> *To:* Marc R Poirier; 'Steven Jamar'
> *Cc:* conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> *Subject:* RE: Citizens United (again?)
>
>
>
> And professional politicians and political parties have “compassion?” I
> think they do a good job pretending when it suits their interests.
>
>
>
> Dr. Ray Kessler
>
> Prof. of Criminal Justice
>
>
>
> P.S.  Please feel free to check out my blog at
>
> http://crimelawandjustice.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Marc R Poirier [mailto:Marc.Poirier at shu.edu]
> *Sent:* Monday, September 27, 2010 11:51 AM
> *To:* 'Steven Jamar'; Raymond Kessler
> *Cc:* <conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>
> *Subject:* RE: Citizens United (again?)
>
>
>
> To me there is a huge difference between a wealthy individual (which is
> what the Founders would have understood to be implicated by ownership) and a
> wealthy corporation. Part of my point is that individuals have a life cycle
> – including children (potentially) and death (certainly); part that human
> beings have emotions and potentially are subject to compassion (cf. Hannah
> Arendt), in a way different than corporations run by groups of human beings
> and subject to various constraints; part that these days many large
> corporations are fundamentally transnational or anational, whereas I suspect
> the wealthy individual in the Founders’ time would have had a country and
> neighbors and often a sense of allegiance.  Abstract universal rights
> rhetoric and abstract property rhetoric, both, obscure the question of the
> nature of those who hold the rights or own the property.
>
>
>
> Marc R. Poirier
>
> Professor of Law and Martha Traylor Research Scholar
>
> Seton  Hall University School of Law
>
> One Newark Center
>
> Newark, NJ 07102
>
> 973-642-8478 (work)
>
> 201-259-0896 (cell)
>
> 973-642-8546 (fax)
>
> Selected articles and drafts available at http://ssrn.com/author=1268697
>
>
>
> Somebody has to plant the seed so that sanity can happen on this earth. --
> Chogyam Trungpa, Rinpoche
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Steven Jamar
> *Sent:* Monday, September 27, 2010 12:31 PM
> *To:* Raymond Kessler
> *Cc:* <conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: Citizens United (again?)
>
>
>
> Maybe both care about getting ideas out to the public fairly and broadly
> and about individual freedoms including speech. But they disagree about
> means and about what is fair and what other countervailing interests or
> rights are at stake--like elections by people, not corporations or dollars.
>
>
>
> But election year rhethoric is not the way to judge motives of masses!
>
> Sent from Steve Jamar's iPhone
>
>
> On Sep 27, 2010, at 12:19 PM, "Raymond Kessler" <rkessler at sulross.edu>
> wrote:
>
>  If it isn’t already obvious, it should be by now why The Dems and Left
> are against the U.S. Supreme Court's First Amendment decision in Citizens
> United, (and voted for the bill which was partly struck down by the Supreme
> Court). They are for the First Amendment only when they benefit.
>
>
>
> "I want you to understand right now all over this country special interests
> are planning and running millions of dollars of attack ads against
> Democratic candidates," Obama said at a Democratic fundraiser in New York on
> Wednesday. "Because of last year's Supreme Court decision in Citizens
> United, they are now allowed to spend as much as they want, unlimited
> amounts of money, and they don't have to reveal who is paying for these
> ads." Source: LINK<http://news.findlaw.com/ap/f/1310/09-27-2010/20100927005017_20.html?DCMP=NWL-pro_top>
>
> Conversely, it should be obvious why Repubs and the Right are happy with
> it.  Neither side really cares about First Amendment values.
>
> IMHO anyone who thinks most American’s politicians have any sincere concern
> about broad-based First Amendment principles beyond self-interest are
> terribly naïve.  Part of the problem in this country is that too many
> politicians, academics  and citizens have no broad-based commitment to the
> Bill of Rights.  They pick and chose what they like and try to interfere
> with those who want to exercise rights they don’t like or use those rights
> for objectives they don’t like.  Think critically: Who Benefits either way?
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Ray Kessler
>
> Prof. of Criminal Justice
>
>
>
> P.S.  Please feel free to check out my blog at
>
> http://crimelawandjustice.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20100927/167f05c8/attachment.htm>


More information about the Conlawprof mailing list