Does Democratic Underground LLC have a right to run DU?

[jberryhill]

This website is owned and operated by Democratic Underground LLC, which pays for its operation.

Should a corporate entity have a right to run a political website advocating the election of Democrats?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

1. Proudly K&R for its non-sensical value

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

[kayakjohnny]

2. Oh boy!

Good luck with this one.

:hi:

[jberryhill]

8. It's just a question

I'm trying to wrap my head around business entities whose freedom of speech depends on whether we agree with what the business wants to say.

[bemildred]

17. You don't understand the issue.

Business entities are not persons and they have no political "freedom of speech" whatsoever.

[jberryhill]

22. So Sullivan v. New York Times Corp. Was Wrong?

And Nixon should have been able to stop the NYT from publishing the Pentagon Papers in the Pentagon Papers case because the NYT is a corporation.

Correct?

[bemildred]

28. Corporations are fictional legal entites and they can do what the law says.

They are not persons, they have no Constitutional rights, Constitutional rights apply to persons, actual human beings.

Edit: as in "human rights".

[jberryhill]

33. Why Does The New York Times Corp. Have First Amendment Rights?

Was this decision wrong?

New York Times Co. v. US

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States?wasRedirected=true

"Then-U.S. President Richard Nixon had claimed executive authority to force the Times to suspend publication of classified information in its possession. The question before the court was whether the constitutional freedom of the press under the First Amendment was subordinate to a claimed Executive need to maintain the secrecy of information. The Supreme Court ruled that First Amendment did protect the New York Times' right to print said materials."

Is this a progressive website or what?

I had always believed this was a landmark case for the First Amendment.

Is the NYT a "special" corporation?

[bemildred]

36. The decision is not wrong.

"The press" may be a corporation, but clearly not all corporations are "the Press".

Ought "political speech" be conflated with "advertising"? Ought "news" be conflated with "advertising"? How are these things distinguished?

Ought we get into the question of what "the Press" is here? Who decides if one is "the Press" or not? Who decides what is "News"?

We cannot on the other hand just abandon these distinctions, which appears to be where the present USSC decision leads, without abandoning the language the Constitution uses.

The first amendment says: "no law" and "or abridging the freedom of speech", why is this even about "the press"? And why is the right to spend money conflated with the right to speak as one chooses?

Hmmmm.

[jberryhill]

43. General Electric owns MSNBC - Is It "Press"? /nt

[bemildred]

45. Exactly.

It's completely ambiguous. Corporations are created and destroyed on a whim, bought and sold like chattel slaves.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. I don't know why it wouldn't...

[Hawkeye-X]

4. LLC can go either way

Small business or large business.

As far as I know, Skinner, Elad and EarlG are the only employees of the DU, LLC.

Unless they were pilfering $$ and buying themselves Hummers and filet mignon for Skinner's dog (Radio? Radar? I forgot)

Hawkeye-X

[jberryhill]

6. Yeah... So is Wal-Mart USA LLC /nt

[gkhouston]

5. I can't answer this poll until I buy some more speech.

:blush:

Where's Grovelbot when you need him? :shrug:

[Myrina]

14. LOL!

:applause:

[baldguy]

7. No, but give me $20 and I'll change my vote.

[Ken Burch]

9. Your point being.....?

Let me guess...you're arguing that the fact that DU is incorporation proves that Democrats shouldn't fight AGAINST corporate power?

Tell me that's not really where you're going with this.

[jberryhill]

11. That would be a quite overbroad reading of what I'm trying to figure out

Believe it or not, I don't know where I'm "going" here. If I knew that, I wouldn't be interested in a discussion.

[Ken Burch]

12. Democratic Underground LLC is, at best, a very small business

It's the online equivalent of the small left-wing bookstore in a college town.

Yes, it has a corporate structure but it's not AIG or Microsoft.

Therefore, the "LLC" really isn't that important in this case.

[jberryhill]

16. Okay, what is the Constitutional limit on "size" by some measure?

Does the New York Times have a right of free speech?

You are familiar with Sullivan v. New York Times, yes?

[treestar]

41. You've made the point

There's nothing wrong with being a corporation.

Your problem is with the big, rich ones.

People on Du through that around as though there is no corporation out there with one shareholder running a little business.

I've started lots of them up.

[anonymous171]

10. LLC stands for Limited Liability Company. It is not a corporation. nt

[jberryhill]

15. Distinction without a difference. Wal-Mart USA is an LLC

Can you explain what distinction you are driving at?

LLC's are a somewhat more flexible structure, but you are okay with Wal-Mart.com USA LLC spending money to promote a political viewpoint, yes?

http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/125/125250.html

[anonymous171]

18. Walmart.com (your link) is indeed an LLC.

However, Walmart Stores is a public corporation. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=WMT&x=0&y=0

[jberryhill]

21. It remains a moot point

Large companies consist of a fabric of affiliated entities for a variety of reasons.

As a non-natural "person" at law, an LLC is treated as a legal
entity just like a corporation.

Verizon, for example, is a tangle of many corporations and LLC's.

Any corporation can form a sole shareholder LLC as an operating subsidiary. I remain mystified by the distinction in terms of the First Amendment.

We celebrate a decision like Sullivan v. New York Times Corp. as a victory for free speech, but then shudder at a corporation having a free speech right. Any corporation can buy a press. Is freedom of the press limited to individually owned presses?

[canetoad]

13. Other

WHAT'S IT TO YOU?

[jberryhill]

24. I'm nosy /nt

[Hello_Kitty]

19. Does Democratic Underground LLC have the right to contribute an unlimited amount of money

To the election or defeat of a particular candidate without releasing the names of individual contributors?

Up until today it didn't.

[jberryhill]

23. That's not the issue

The issue was whether corporate funded media productions were "contributions in kind" to campaigns.

Limits on direct contributions can be capped for corporations and individuals alike.

[branders seine]

20. only if they bribe enough congressmen

[Kitty Herder]

25. Is money speech?

[jberryhill]

26. Does The New York Times Corp. Own A Press?

The ink isn't free.

[Kitty Herder]

31. The money in that case allows the speech to be amplified.

It is not the substance of speech itself. Campaign donations are considered speech in and of themselves. It's a bit different.

[jberryhill]

35. But the case was about whether...

...privately funded speech "effectively" counts as a "contribution".

For example, you run a campaign, I run a corporation. I pay my own money to run my own press to promote your candidacy in state X. Consequently, you don't have to spend money to advertise in state X. It's not a question of whether I gave you money. I didn't give you money. But my actions saved you money. That is the kind of "contribution" we are talking about.

I don't think it is as simple a question as it's being made out here. At what point can you tell me my company doesn't have freedom to run a press as I see fit, since most of our big First Amendment cases were all about corporations.

[Kitty Herder]

40. I think it does count as a contribution.

I suppose that's where the court and I differ.

[treestar]

42. Or even an individual

A rich individual could buy all these things too.

[coti]

27. This is a good question to ask. Critical thinking.

Do you see any distinctions between the situations upon which SCOTUS ruled today and the instance of DU running a political website?

[jberryhill]

29. I haven't read it yet, but wanted food for thought before I do

And trying to come up with some set of distinctions that would make a Constitutional difference.

I am watching Keith Olberman, courtesy of MSNBC, tell me how awful this is, and stunned by the irony.

[SmileyRose]

30. Yes, but only Grovelbot should have personhood.

skinner and the rest of those bums can go get a real job.

:)

[Sebastian Doyle]

32. Democratic Underground LLC is three guys and a whiny robot that shows up every few months

Hardly comparable to corporations spending BILLIONS to buy an election.

[jberryhill]

34. Where is the Constitutional Line?

DU is "small".

Is New York Times Co. also "small"?

Time-Warner?

What's the line that makes a Constitutional difference? Is it a number?

[Sebastian Doyle]

37. Natural persons. Period.

If you don't have a pulse, you're not a person.

[bemildred]

39. Yeah, that's my take too.

Simple and unambiguous. Otherwise, eventually, you wind up tying yourself in knots trying to make sense, as the USSC did today.

[jberryhill]

44. Then DU LLC does not have first amendment rights? Correct? /nt

[gkhouston]

38. I kinda like Skinner. It's not nice to call him a whiny robot. n/t