Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So if corporations are people, and they present super PAC ads that are false, can they be sued for (Original Post) still_one Jan 2012 OP
Why not. lonestarnot Jan 2012 #1
Yes, but "false" isn't the key dems_rightnow Jan 2012 #2
Yes - and they always could. The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2012 #3
mere falseness is not sufficient for libel or slander unblock Jan 2012 #4
Except the real people behind the PACs are unknown frazzled Jan 2012 #5
That Congress will do anything I won't hold my breath /nt still_one Jan 2012 #7
That's ridiculous jberryhill Jan 2012 #9
True, but frazzled Jan 2012 #10
The OP poses a question about defamation liability /nt jberryhill Jan 2012 #11
Right frazzled Jan 2012 #12
503c is a means to avoid "Civil Liabilities" FreakinDJ Jan 2012 #6
Corporations can be sued for all kinds of things jberryhill Jan 2012 #8

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,683 posts)
3. Yes - and they always could.
Sun Jan 22, 2012, 11:46 AM
Jan 2012

Corporations have always been able to sue and be sued in their own name. You can libel a corporation and corporations can commit libel.

The problem isn't the corporation; the problem is that the person who is allegedly being libeled is a public figure, and the law relating to libel of public figures (New York Times v. Sullivan) says that in order for a public figure such as a politician who deliberately subjects himself to public scrutiny by running for office to win a libel claim he has to prove actual malice - that is, that the person making the false statement did so with the knowledge it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth. It is a very difficult standard to meet, and public figures rarely win libel actions.

unblock

(52,208 posts)
4. mere falseness is not sufficient for libel or slander
Sun Jan 22, 2012, 11:49 AM
Jan 2012

while it hasn't happened yet, i'm sure they're not exempt from libel and slander laws.

but any competent lawyer can easily revise text subtly to steer clear of such laws.

the classic move is to preface the nastiest libel with "in my opinion" and viola, it's no longer libel.

this is why a lot of political ads don't state facts (or don't actually state the facts they leave you with the impression they're stating), they just express opinions or ask telling questions.

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
5. Except the real people behind the PACs are unknown
Sun Jan 22, 2012, 11:57 AM
Jan 2012

You can't sue a superPAC unless there's a body to drag into court. These are completely unknown entities, with no transparency.

Which is why Congress has to pass a law that requires donors to be divulged.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
9. That's ridiculous
Sun Jan 22, 2012, 01:57 PM
Jan 2012

You do not have to know the names of the officers and directors to sue a corporation.

Service is made on the registered agent for the corporation in the charter jurisdiction or on the Secretary of State in the charter jurisdiction.

You'll have the names of the officers and directors in short order under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26.

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
10. True, but
Sun Jan 22, 2012, 04:28 PM
Jan 2012

Registering a Super PAC appears to be as easy as an individual sending a letter and form to the FEC. The people doing the registering are often unheard-of front people, with no resources themselves; many don't even maintain a Web site or any further information. It's the corporations behind these groups, the actual donors, that are so incredibly hidden. Often these corporations are shams themselves, straw companies, in effect, that disappear after the donation is made. Untangling it is a holy mess:

The Legal Center and Democracy 21 have been at the center of the corporate contributions controversies surrounding the pro-Romney Super PAC Restore Our Future. The two reform groups filed a complaint calling for an investigation into the alleged $1 million donation from the short-lived corporation W Spann's to the pro-Romney group.

The reform groups are now calling for an investigation into two other obscure corporate donations to Restore Our Future, Eli Publishing and F8, LLC, for making contributions in someone else's name.

"The enforcement agencies need to send a clear message to donors that they need to put their name on the check if they're going to be giving to Super PACs and I hope that reporters are taking a close look at filings by other Super PACs so that these types of abuses are smoked out," the Campaign Legal Center's Ryan said in a statement. "The fact that Restore Our Future has been the recipient of all three mysterious $1 million contributions warrants exploration of the PAC's knowledge of or involvement in this 'straw company' donation scheme."

The Huffington Post previously reported that the Utah state business records show that Eli Publishing and F8, LLC are registered with one of the founders of the Provo, Utah-based marketing company Nu Skin Enterprises and a lawyer connected to the company.

Unlike human beings, corporate donors need only disclose the name of the company, which in the case of W Spann provided no public information, and for Eli Publishing and F8, LLC provides little immediate information. That problem extends to many of the other corporations giving to Super PACs that also have relatively obscure names with little immediately available information on the humans behind the contributions.

2GIG Technologies, B/E Aerospace, National Label Company and R.P. Lumber Co. are just some of the obscure names that appear on Restore Our Future's disclosure report. The reports filed by American Crossroads and other groups also contain corporate names that have little distinguishing characteristics and are often subsidiaries of bigger companies

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/11/super-pac-corporate-donations_n_924865.html


Before we can talk about lawsuits, I still maintain that laws have to be put in place to make the process wholly transparent. Otherwise, we're just going to institute an entire industry of "smoke-out" litigation that will provide its own inner justification for existence, because its bound to be incredibly remunerative. Better yet, reverse Citizens United. Take the whole thing back to SCOTUS somehow. Otherwise, we're just going to have everybody trying to sue everybody else, and vice versa and so forth, and it's an incredible waste of time and resources.

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
12. Right
Sun Jan 22, 2012, 04:40 PM
Jan 2012

So you're going to sue the Joe Blow frontman who registered the PAC, who has no funds themselves?

Again, if you want to start a whole cottage industry of defamation suits, it sounds like a great game to get into. But the underlying problem will not go away.

 

FreakinDJ

(17,644 posts)
6. 503c is a means to avoid "Civil Liabilities"
Sun Jan 22, 2012, 11:57 AM
Jan 2012

they can do as much harm as they want and walk away assured they will face no liabilities

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
8. Corporations can be sued for all kinds of things
Sun Jan 22, 2012, 01:15 PM
Jan 2012

If you weren't able to sue a corporation for, say, breach of contract, then I hope you enjoy not getting paid for working.

Falwell v Hustler was a famous example of a defamation suit against a corporation.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So if corporations are pe...