[fennecfoxen]

It’s the same old “personhood” fiction for doing things in groups that’s been around since Dartmouth College vs Woodward, which is over 200 years at this point.

Corporations are also entitled to other rights that can be exercised by groups, like not having their property searched without a warrant or seized without just compensation, or their contracts broken. They are presumed innocent in court unless demonstrated guilty.

The actual Citizens in question were getting together (uniting, if you will) to spend money and engage in overtly political speech in a tradition that goes back to Thomas Paine. They used a non-charitable not-for-profit corporation to make and to show a stupid movie about Hillary Clinton. They used a corporation because that’s what you’re supposed to use for things like this and the alternative is sending the money to one private person’s individual bank account and that’s got all sorts of problems. And the court found that was a valid way for the people who contributed to exercise their rights to free speech, because of course it is.

[woodruffw]

This is the second time in this thread[1] that someone has tried to talk Citizens United down into some sort of scrappy outfit, when it was anything but.

I am also not convinced that use of a personal bank account was a significant problem here, unless you mean in the sense that the FEC (rightfully) prohibits excessive individual contributions.

Assuming it was, however: it stands to reason that everyone (including myself!) would be content with a legal structure where N people can pool their money into a publicly auditable political contributions account. I would happily support a law that makes that easier! But that wasn't the intended goal with CU -- the goal there was to channel extraordinary donations from a very small handful of individuals in a manner not accountable to the public.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32880236

[fennecfoxen]

You know what? You want to talk down Citizens United the organization, say I’m playing them as too scrappy and they’re really big money? … be my guest.

But don’t use your personal bank accounts to run businesses or charities, and don’t let anyone at the business or charities you might some day run do that either. That’s a massive red flag, the IRS will come auditing and looking for money laundering, and besides that there’s just an ocean of ways that can go wrong.

And the mechanism for sharing your account like you want already exists. It is called “incorporation”. That is like 85% of the point, easily. (That and doing things with the money, like entering into contracts or owning property.) You’re reinventing the corporation.

Anyway. The goal of CU was to air a movie (a stupid political hit-piece movie, I wouldn’t watch it, but it’s plenty politics).

[tlear]

Personal bank account? You want to get audited, sued and loose everything you own?Because that is how you can achieve that.

[rocqua]

Why is a for profit corporation the right instrument here? It seems to me that wanting to join together for political speech doesn't need a profit motive, since there is another motive. Does America not recognize provide any manners for organization that are not for profit without needing to be charitable?

A 'foundation' in the Netherlands (where I am from) would serve perfectly. And it seems to make sense to me to bar for-profit organizations from influencing elections because of the inherent conflict.