Skip to main content

This has been on my mind for awhile, and couldn't figure out what to do with this, until I thought about signing up and posting it here.

Citizens United basically states that money now equals speech. Because of that, the question that most people have been asking is "Are corporations really people?", but shouldn't the question we should be asking is, "Are people corporations? And if so, what does that truly mean?"

Since the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people, we, as living, breathing human beings, are tied to them. And under the Equal Protection Clause, this should have huge ramifications.

Simply put, shouldn't we challenge Citizens United under the grounds that corporations are taxed differently than living, breathing citizens? And as such are afforded more speech than average citizens?

If money equates to speech, tax breaks, being taxed on profit rather than revenue ( personal income), and a myriad of other corporate tax incentives, are unjustly giving corporations unequal power when compared to how citizens are taxed. And since corporations are people, under the Equal Protection Clause, isn't that unconstitutional? Think about how much money you could save if you were taxed as a corporation (taxed only on the amount of profit/savings you made each year). And think about how much more money you could contribute to the political system if you had all of that extra disposable income. Under the Equal Protection Clause, if money truly equals speech, isn't different taxation depriving you of our speech?  Isn't it giving corporations a significantly biased/undue amount of speech/influence in our elections.

So my question is, shouldn't someone challenge Citizens United by filing their taxes as a corporation does, saving a huge amount of money, and when the IRS challenges it, sue based on the fact that the current tax law is unconstitutional and depriving them of their first amendment rights?


Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  from wikipedia - fwiw (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snyc, Musial, Skyye

    The majority argued that the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker.Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.
    •  CU raises the question whether Americans can (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Skyye, Chi

      organize themselves sufficiently to provide an electoral mandate for game changing legislation that effectively overrules CU. Congress has ample power to do it but it requires national focus as with the New Deal and civil rights. The problem since Buckley has been that free speech has been rendered irrelevant by advertising and the big money is confident that voters can never again deliver a mandate in their own self interest. This is the antidemocratic impact that judicial supremacy has, as when it overruled the 1850 compromise in Dred Scott, overruled Civil Rights in 1883, enforced segregation, tried to stop the New Deal. Judicial supremacy acting against democratic reform is the giant flaw in the system, and it was just made up, not even in the Constitution, a hijacking as Jefferson duly noted after Marbury. Also it is entirely superfluous. Last I checked no serious democracy, certainly not England or France, permits such Court vetos of legislation, and Americans wonder what went wrong. They don't have a democracy.

  •  snyc - four thoughts (0+ / 0-)

    The principle that money equals speech was decided in the case Buckley v Valeo (1976), not Citizens United.

    The SCOTUS has NEVER ruled that corporations are people, although that is a widely held myth on the Internet. That was particularly true in Citizens United where the Court made clear distinctions between "human persons" and groups of people like clubs, unions, or corporations.

    Salary or wage income has never been viewed as revenues for tax purposes. However, if you generate revenues by selling a product or service you can deduct from revenues all of your reasonable costs incurred to deliver the product to determine your pre-tax income.

    There is no basis in law or logic for your proposal.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 09:34:33 PM PDT

  •  We WISH we were corporations nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Skyye, Chi

    Pay no attention to the upward redistribution of wealth!

    by ActivistGuy on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 11:11:56 PM PDT

  •  thanks for signing up (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to join our conversations here.  hope it's proved a fruitful experience for you and you'll find more to engage you.

    Welcome from the DK Partners & Mentors Team. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Knowledge Base or from the New Diarists Resources Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 06:34:08 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site