Greenwald appears to side with Scalia et. al in his reasoning. He says corporations' free speech cannot be curtailed. Greenwald also appears to support the Big Money electoral system.

Thanks Glenn for clarifying that corporations are the same as individual human beings and deserve free speech. Thanks for confirming that money is same as free speech. Looking for a job at Cato or Heritage?

When our founders spoke of a "people's" government, granted

they were still playing games of "some are more equal than

others" . . .

but they were talking about living human beings who

breathe, who have birth certificates - conscience --

and human needs. People who can vote, who can marry.

Who can biologically procreate. None of this applies

to corporations.

But from the highest perspective our Founders feared

capitalism and corporations --

And we have already seen the damage capitalism can do

to a nation. Especially unregulated capitalism which is

merely organized crime.

All told, we should be ending our experience with capitalism

and corporations -- not expanding them.

Capitalism is a ridiculous "King-of-the-Hill" system

intended to move the wealth and natural resources of a

nation from the many to the few.

Capitalism is anti-democracy -- anti-human rights --

and I would think that by now we'd all be tired of bailing

it out after its repeated "failures."

.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"

No surprises there. Greenwald is a libertarian, and is not only an absolutist but an extreme absolutist.

Mr. Greenwald's arguments in support of the CU decision have been shown to be full of logical errors (26 at latest count) and errors of plain fact (eight). The factual errors appear to be deliberate.

Nobody but me seems to have noticed that Greenwald makes the same errors in reasoning that Socrates makes in Plato's "Phaedo". Some of the biggest errors and injustices have a very long and distinguished history. Apparently Mr. Greenwald was absent that day in his philosophy class, because he sure got that one wrong.

There are many ways to discredit Mr. Greenwald's position. Kucinich takes the kid glove approach and isn't particularly edifying. Some of the better ones are on Salon.com, assuming they haven't been deleted.

cool it, guys. the reason money makes so much difference in american campaigns is because we lack class solidarity. chavez has decisively won several elections in venzuela, although he was massively outspent by his opposition, who controlled several large media outlets in the urban areas of venzuela. no amount of money could convince 51% of venzuelans to vote against their interests. there are good reasons for progressives to fear any regulation of corporate speech. campaign financing is the answer. under that system, progressives would be outspent, but they would at least have a chance to better disseminate their message. and, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't it true that this decision permits unlimited issue advocacy, but still retains to the federal election commision the right to control amounts contributed directly to candidates?

Corporations are "its." They are not not people. They're not supposed to vote, and if they have any say on who gets elected, that's just a major legal loophole that degrades democracy - or rather, it puts democracy up for sale to the wealthiest corporations.

I'm not sure how Greenwald applies speech rights to non-human entities, but that's just plain wrong. Corporations are chartered by the state simply to make money for shareholders. That's an amoral machine-like position. Democracy, on the other hand, implies human agency and moral behavior. Greenwald is totally confused on this issue.

I think people should have the power to vote to dissolve corporations that haven't served the public interest. Should the murderous Blackwater corporation be able to funnel money back to Washington or engage in political "speech"? Isn't it more appropriate, in terms of the First Amendment, to allow voters to dissolve Blackwater by voting to strip its corporate charter?

-TIA

Corporate money buys a megaphone for the few who control it. That's completely anti-democratic, though of course completely in keeping with the Federalist/crypto-monarchist/Platonist mythology that wealthy people are, ipso facto, a "natural aristocracy" who will govern for the good of all.

Whatever the solution is to getting the best voices heard rather than the loudest, it's *not* to let the wealthy few buy a megaphone!

Glenwood's position isn't clearly explained in the video. I believe he thinks the First Amendment doesn't make any exception for corporations in saying there should be no law abridging the freedom of speech or the press. It seems to me the distinction between "the press" and "the freedom of speech" indicates that a special status is accorded the press, which would include corporate entities (I assume Fox, CBS, NYT, etc., are corporations), but not corporations set up for purposes other than those of "the press." McCain-Feingold in no way limits the freedom of CEO's or other high officials of corporations, members of boards of directors, or stockholders to say whatever they want to say. It seems to me that limiting their individual freedom because they are associated with corporations would be the forbidden abridgment, not limiting the freedom of corporations themselves (other than the press).

The problem we're really grappling with is that of "effective speech." Unless you're wealthy, either on your own or in association with a corporation or other business form, it's very difficult to get your speech out to the masses effectively. Even if McCain-Feingold were to remain on the books, there is no protected freedom of EFFECTIVE speech in this country, or any country that I know of. The biggest thing we of little means have going for us in this regard is the Internet; otherwise, we can talk to ourselves or a few people around us. Greenwald's compelling articles about executive assassinations don't appear in the MSM, notwithstanding that Kucinich (who also very seldom gets the attention of the MSM) has read them. I believe the best, the most intelligent, the most illuminating commentary on public affairs doesn't reach the masses, while people like Palin, Cheney, etc., who say nothing really worthwhile, can effectively say it because they have money and/or get their ideas propagated by people with money. I don't know that there's a way around this.

Greenwald is no libertarian. He, is, however, one who sticks with principle even when it is painful to do so. Before anyone comments on what he is or his beliefs, I recommend reading his analysis of this ruling. See:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/index.html

Greenwald is careful to note that the desirability of an outcome is separate from its correctness. There is no doubt, he argues, that the Citizens United ruling will be bad for democracy. You won't hear a libertarian say that about his "free markets," even though it's obvious to most of us how horrific truly free markets would be (like playing football without goalposts or referees).

Where I disagree with Glenn is in the fact that a corporation is an amoral entity afforded special rights (shielded liability for its owners, highly disproportional use of the "commons," etc.) that humans do not have. It seems to me that a legal fiction should have limited human rights in exchange for its state-given privileges. This is, essentially, what Kucinich argues: that business's undue influence on the political machinery should be checked by some similar government-created protection for its human creators.