Yeah for Corporate Personhood! [Archive]

Crazed Rabbit

01-21-2010, 20:22

Good, that law is unconstitutional.

“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of its conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

From the Majority Opinion:

The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations — including nonprofit advocacy corporations — either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.

This isn't any sort of sell out; it's a recognition of the first amendment and a strike against incumbent protection laws passed by those same incumbents.

CR

Ronin

01-21-2010, 20:29

Crazed Rabbit

01-21-2010, 20:35

you do realize that the word "amendment" itself states that the original writers made a mistake right??

so why can´t the amendment itself be wrong? saying that corporations can essentially "buy" political power does not lead anywhere good.

Are you familiar with how the Bill of Rights came into being?

Also - this is a country ruled by law, law based and restricted by the constitution. No one can legally declare part of the constitution wrong and ignore it. Any wrongness is irrelevant, and can only be changed by constitutional amendment.

CR

Lemur

01-21-2010, 20:47

Ronin, CR is correct, the Bill of Rights has every bit of force and applicability as the Constitution. Point of law, the amendments are a part of the Constitution. That's how we roll.

Personally, I find the awarding of full rights and privileges to corporations that we award to citizens problematic, both in application and origin (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person), seeing as it was invented and inserted into the Supreme Court's records in 1886 by a court reporter. Weird but true.

Santa Clara County in California was trying to levy a property tax against the Southern Pacific Railroad. The railroad gave numerous reasons why it shouldn't have to pay, one of which rested on the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause: the railroad was being held to a different standard than human taxpayers.

When the case reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.

Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published "headnotes." (Davis had already had a long career in public service, and at one point was president of the board of directors for the Newburgh & New York Railroad Company.) In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment--which would ordinarily never see print--in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.

-edit-

Here's a decent Wiki article about the history, pros and cons of corporate personhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate).

Crazed Rabbit

01-21-2010, 21:27

This isn't so much about corporate personhood as whether a group of people can engage in free speech. And the law extended beyond corporations to non-profit groups as well.

In the end, it's about free speech. It's whether or not you support free speech, and that means all free speech, not only speech you agree with, or speech that isn't offensive, or speech from certain groups of people.

CR

Lemur

01-21-2010, 21:39

This isn't so much about corporate personhood as whether a group of people can engage in free speech. And the law extended beyond corporations to non-profit groups as well.
Legally incorrect. A "non-profit group" falls within the legal definition of corporation, as would an LLC, co-op, what-have-you.

Free speech is a privilege of citizens, so it's a bit weird to declare that this isn't about corporate personhood. Are you suggesting that the bill of rights extends to all creatures, organizations and entities so long as they are within the United States? Does this mean dogs have free speech? How about robots? How about dolphins? How about illegal immigrants? If not, why not?

This is entirely about corporate personhood. We are unique in western democracies in that we extend to corporations the same rights and privileges that we accord to citizens. And it's all based on the independent actions of an 1886 court reporter (although that dubious precedent has been upheld many times since).

Crazed Rabbit

01-21-2010, 21:47

Legally incorrect. A "non-profit group" falls within the legal definition of corporation, as would an LLC, co-op, what-have-you.

Ah.

Free speech is a privilege of citizens, so it's a bit weird to declare that this isn't about corporate personhood. Are you suggesting that the bill of rights extends to all creatures, organizations and entities so long as they are within the United States? Does this mean dogs have free speech? How about robots? How about dolphins? How about illegal immigrants? If not, why not?

Corporations are merely groups of citizens; do they lose rights they had individually if they join together? Why should they? The examples listed in the majority opinion illustrate to me why corporations should be able to speak freely.

CR

Sasaki Kojiro

01-21-2010, 21:54

Corporations are merely groups of citizens; do they lose rights they had individually if they join together?

Well, all of the individuals in the corporation can speak individually, correct? It does seem a bit odd.

Lemur

01-21-2010, 21:56

Corporations are merely groups of citizens; do they lose rights they had individually if they join together? Why should they?
Corporations have key differences from an individual citizen. Among them:

They are immortal
They are (usually) immune from most forms of liability (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/corporate-immunity.html)*
They lack personal (and often organizational) legal accountability
They usually command far more money free speech than any citizen
They are able to carve out legal and financial exemptions not available to any citizen
For commercial corporations, their primary mission is the maximization of shareholder value (which is as it should be), not the common weal (http://www.dailyrepublican.com/americansphinx.html), which gives them a natural difference of focus and interest from a citizen

And so forth. To their long list of advantages over citizens, we also add the full spectrum of rights and privileges accorded to individuals, who have the disadvantage of dying and not having immunity from liability.

Obviously, I think this is misguided, and should be re-examined. We're the only western democracy that does this, and the latest Supreme Court decision just makes the contrast starker.

______________
*Exception being sole proprietor businesses, but you knew that already.

Beskar

01-21-2010, 21:57

Victory for the Ferengi!

https://img35.imageshack.us/img35/4861/ferengi1.jpg

drone

01-21-2010, 22:06

Corporations are not groups of citizens, they are chartered institutions with various state governments (in the US). A person can incorporate him/herself (therefore not a group), a non-citizen can control a corporation through share ownership, and corporations can control other corporations. The problem is with for-profit corporations influencing elections and essentially bribing elected officials with corporate profit (usually without the say-so of the shareholders), either directly through contributions or indirectly through other front corporations.

I'm all for having legal protections for companies, but there are some "rights" they just shouldn't have.

Ronin

01-21-2010, 22:10

Are you familiar with how the Bill of Rights came into being?

Also - this is a country ruled by law, law based and restricted by the constitution. No one can legally declare part of the constitution wrong and ignore it. Any wrongness is irrelevant, and can only be changed by constitutional amendment.

CR

Ronin, CR is correct, the Bill of Rights has every bit of force and applicability as the Constitution. Point of law, the amendments are a part of the Constitution. That's how we roll.

I wasn´t proposing you ignore the bill of rights....I was proposing you guys change it.

Lemur

01-21-2010, 22:15

I wasn´t proposing you ignore the bill of rights....I was proposing you guys change it.
No need. Corporations are never mentioned in the bill of rights, so it's just a question of whether or not the rights of citizens extend to such organizations.

Vladimir

01-21-2010, 22:18

Lemur

01-21-2010, 22:20

Vladimir, the "law" (actually what they call a "precedent") has already been addressed, and I don't see you responding in any way to the substance.

Toyota is majority foreign-owned. Please explain why Toyota should have the same (actually superior) rights to free speech as a U.S. citizen.

Tellos Athenaios

01-21-2010, 22:32

It is certainly an odd thing that laws for U.S. citizens are applied to U.S. corporations & ngo's seeing as U.S. corporations are not U.S. citizens themselves. Sure they are a legal persona (entity) but surely not equivalent to a private citizen (different kind of persona); as is evidenced by the various laws that do apply to corporations & ngo's but not to citizens and vice versa.

drone

01-21-2010, 22:33

By lawpsuedo-judicial fiat corporations are U.S. Persons. Anyone can incorporate. If money is the primary determining factor in elections we would have had President Kerry.

Fixed that for you. ~;)

Beskar

01-21-2010, 22:42

Let's see everyone line up along expected lines and throw down. Go on now, toe your respective line.

By law corporations are U.S. Persons. Anyone can incorporate. If money is the primary determining factor in elections we would have had President Kerry.

I thought Money and Corperations is what got Bush elected as he overthrow the election results which showed Al Gore should have been President of the United States.

So much for democracy.

Lemur

01-21-2010, 22:46

I thought Money and Corperations is what got Bush elected as he overthrow the election results which showed Al Gore should have been President of the United States.
No, that's not even vaguely how it happened, and I seriously doubt you could find any sourcing to back that black helicopter theory up.

If you want to point toward anything particular from the spectacular mess that was the 2000 presidential election, it would be the Supreme Court's decision to end the process, and even that is debatable.

This sort of empty sloganeering is a distraction from the issue at hand, which is the personhood of corporations in the U.S., and their now-affirmed constitutional right to free speech.

-edit-

Looks like that socialist hippie, Thomas Jefferson (http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff5.htm), was all over this: "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Kralizec

01-21-2010, 23:01

I thought Money and Corperations is what got Bush elected as he overthrow the election results which showed Al Gore should have been President of the United States.

It's not as if Democrats don't have companies backing them, you know.
Bush won because he won the majority in the electoral college, even though Gore won the "popular vote". These sort of things happen when you carve the electorate up in pieces and it's not specific to the US.

...

Corporations are merely groups of citizens; do they lose rights they had individually if they join together? Why should they? The examples listed in the majority opinion illustrate to me why corporations should be able to speak freely.

Stockholders in commercial companies can still donate from their private pockets, so I don't see a problem there. Do CEO's even ask their stockholders for permission to fund a political campaign? I can't put my finger on it, but something feels wrong here - and it's not just the amount of money concerned.

OTOH with non-commercial entities specificall created to advocate certain political views, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to fund campaigns. Prohibiting them from even endorsing a candidate seems strange.

Ironside

01-21-2010, 23:08

Let's see everyone line up along expected lines and throw down. Go on now, toe your respective line.

By law corporations are U.S. Persons. Anyone can incorporate. If money is the primary determining factor in elections we would have had President Kerry.

Why would you be so stupid to only buy support one of the candidates? :inquisitive: And should you actually face an honest candidate that opposes you, you can slander express your opinion on him by proxy (which is partially the original issue, even if that was probably honest dirt).

I mean, we can now have a Glenn Beck inc. if I got the rules correctly.

Subotan

01-21-2010, 23:18

I thought the Bill of Rights was created to protect the rights of the individual, as the original constitution is too government-y.

drone

01-21-2010, 23:19

Do CEO's even ask their stockholders for permission to fund a political campaign? I can't put my finger on it, but something feels wrong here - and it's not just the amount of money concerned.
That would be a no. I suppose it could technically be claimed by the board as necessary under their fiduciary duty, but in this case it should limit the "speech" to commercial speech (with the requisite truth in advertising requirements).

OTOH with non-commercial entities specificall created to advocate certain political views, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to fund campaigns. Prohibiting them from even endorsing a candidate seems strange.
This. :yes: With the restriction of for-profit ownership/contributions to these non-commercial entities, of course.

a completely inoffensive name

01-22-2010, 01:46

This is one of those moments where I am ashamed that my government just gave me another big ole facepalm moment.

Xiahou

01-22-2010, 02:35

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or
jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political
speech, but Austin’s antidistortion rationale would permit the Gov
ernment to ban political speech because the speaker is an association
with a corporate form. Political speech is “indispensable to decision
making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech
comes from a corporation.”Makes sense to me. :yes:

From what I see, corporate personhood is tangential to the issue. Corporations are, simply put, associations of citizens and there's no constitutional basis for denying these groups First Amendment rights. The decision isn't saying that corporations get First Amendment protection because they are corporations- it's saying that free speech can't be denied on the basis of being a corporation as opposed to any other group of citizens.

I'm glad to see McCain-Feingold weakened.

edit:

This. :yes: With the restriction of for-profit ownership/contributions to these non-commercial entities, of course.It's worth noting that the corporation in this decision was a non-profit. :yes:

jabarto

01-22-2010, 02:48

I came here to post exactly this. I know this country is going to hell in a handbasket, but I never thought the Supreme Court would finally be the one to demolish democracy as we know it. This is...no. THere are no words for this.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-22-2010, 02:52

I don't see how this will demolish democracy...

CrossLOPER

01-22-2010, 03:03

jabarto

01-22-2010, 03:04

There are now no - read that: NO - limitations on the ability of the corporations to control our elections.

You really don't see what problems might arise from this?

EDIT: Not you CrossLoper

Xiahou

01-22-2010, 03:16

There are now no - read that: NO - limitations on the ability of the corporations to control our elections.

You really don't see what problems might arise from this?

EDIT: Not you CrossLoper

Seeing as how McCain-Feingold didn't exist prior to 2002, I think democracy will survive. :yes:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-22-2010, 03:31

There are now no - read that: NO - limitations on the ability of the corporations to control our elections.

Actually, that's untrue. You have this fancy thing known as a "vote." Unless you sell it, you're alright.

a completely inoffensive name

01-22-2010, 03:33

If a corporation is a legal person then we need to arrest every stockholder who owns part of a corporation. Owning a person is slavery and that is unconstitutional.

Lemur

01-22-2010, 03:40

From what I see, corporate personhood is tangential to the issue. Corporations are, simply put, associations of citizens and there's no constitutional basis for denying these groups First Amendment rights.
Corporations are not necessarily "associations of citizens," as you well know, and nobody anywhere is suggesting that citizens should be denied any rights of speech.

The implication of your reasoning is that corporate entities are entitled to the full protection of the first amendment. Thus they are citizens, or equivalent. I don't see how you can whistle past the obvious.

Crazed Rabbit

01-22-2010, 03:44

I can see the arguments against giving corporations all rights of a person.

I don't see how you can ban non-profits from advertising against/for someone if they've received money from for-profit companies, though. Trying to keep money out of politics is a battle doomed to fail. Campaign finance reform, and all the regulations that go along with it, serve mainly to help the two main political parties and incumbents prevent challengers, since you need a lawyer(s) to run for government.

Either way, I am very happy with this ruling, because it did unconstitutionally infringe on the free speech rights of non-profit advocacy organizations, in a way to help incumbents.

I came here to post exactly this. I know this country is going to hell in a handbasket, but I never thought the Supreme Court would finally be the one to demolish democracy as we know it. This is...no. THere are no words for this.

And the award for hyperbole of the week...goes to you!:balloon2: :balloon2: :juggle2: :clown: :balloon2: :balloon2: Congrats!

CR

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-22-2010, 03:47

A compromise should be something like removing personhood from corporations, while allowing them to retain some of the associated rights, while at the same time allowing them to run advertisements for, but not donate directly to, a candidate.

Xiahou

01-22-2010, 03:51

The implication of your reasoning is that corporate entities are entitled to the full protection of the first amendment. Thus they are citizens, or equivalent. I don't see how you can whistle past the obvious.Again, look at the decision:

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speechThis is exactly what McCain-Feingold was trying to do- criminally sanctioning citizens for making political speech. Whether the association is a corporation or a boy scout troop makes no difference to that. Yourself and the OP are just injecting one of your pet peeves (corporate personhood) into this situation where it isn't really relevant. The decision, as I read it, says that any citizen or association of citizens has the right to engage in political speech. McCain-Feingold was overruled because it singled out corporations as a specific group that would be denied free speech. I see nothing to indicate that the case would have been decided differently in the absence of corporate personhood- thus it's tangential to the issue. Corporations aren't being extended free speech because they are "persons", they were being unconstitutionally denied it on the basis of being a corporation.

Devastatin Dave

01-22-2010, 03:59

Toyota is majority foreign-owned. Please explain why Toyota should have the same (actually superior) rights to free speech as a U.S. citizen.

The same reason a foreign terrorist and an illegal combatant should be subject to a trial in US civilian court and not by military tribunal.:2thumbsup:

Lemur

01-22-2010, 04:05

Again, look at the decision:

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speechThis is exactly what McCain-Feingold was trying to do- criminally sanctioning citizens for making political speech.
Note that in making your rebuttal you use the word "citizens." (Bolding mine.) You automatically assume that a corporation is a citizen, with no critical examination of what law, precedent or constitutionality underlies the basis of your own argument. (And in a feat of breathtaking illogic, assert that the foundational assumption of your argument is "tangential.") Look at the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, no law abridging the freedom of speech, check. As always with law the question becomes, to whom does this apply? If we take the broadest reading, that no speech anywhere can be abridged, that means that China is constitutionally guaranteed the right to buy political ads in the U.S. Oh, China isn't a citizen, you say? The First Amendment didn't specify that it only applies to citizens. Oh you say, it's implicit that it only applies to citizens? Then what is a citizen? Again, I don't see how you can escape the blindingly obvious.

Corporations aren't being extended free speech because they are "persons", they were being unconstitutionally denied it on the basis of being a corporation.
If they are "unconstitutionally denied" a right, that means they are entitled to that right, which means that they enjoy some of the privileges of citizenship.

-edit-

The same reason a foreign terrorist and an illegal combatant should be subject to a trial in US civilian court and not by military tribunal.
I knew this was all about terrorism somehow. Thanks!

drone

01-22-2010, 04:06

Again, look at the decision:

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speechThis is exactly what McCain-Feingold was trying to do- criminally sanctioning citizens for making political speech. Whether the association is a corporation or a boy scout troop makes no difference to that. Yourself and the OP are just injecting one of your pet peeves (corporate personhood) into this situation where it isn't really relevant. The decision, as I read it, says that any citizen or association of citizens has the right to engage in political speech. McCain-Feingold was overruled because it singled out corporations as a specific group that would be denied free speech. I see nothing to indicate that the case would have been decided differently in the absence of corporate personhood- thus it's tangential to the issue. Corporations aren't being extended free speech because they are "persons", they were being unconstitutionally denied it on the basis of being a corporation.

There are no mentions of corporations in the constitution, so the unconstitutionality doesn't really apply. Except for the corporate personhood aspect, so it is definitely relevant to this discussion. I also have a problem with the usage of the word "citizen", which implies even more rights to the corporation than "person".

Tellos Athenaios

01-22-2010, 04:08

Yes but the problem arises from the fact that:

(a) A corporation is an association of stockholders;
(b) Stockholders need not be citizens;
(c) Stockholders need not be persons.
(d) Stockholders need not otherwise be affiliated with anything US-American at all.

This suggest that this First Amendment cannot apply to corporations in general. And that is completely ignoring the fact that:

(e) Corporations are not held to the same laws as other persona entities.

Things military service do not apply; taxes are a completely different ball game; and social security/ bailout seems to be remarkably one-way. A citizen is generally expected to repay his debt, but it is accepted business risk your corporate debtors may go bankrupt and its debts must be written off.

Xiahou

01-22-2010, 04:52

There are no mentions of corporations in the constitution, so the unconstitutionality doesn't really apply. Except for the corporate personhood aspect, so it is definitely relevant to this discussion. I also have a problem with the usage of the word "citizen", which implies even more rights to the corporation than "person".The point of the decision is that all groups are entitled to free speech. McCain-Feingold singled out corporations for speech restrictions that did not apply to other organizations. "Personhood" of the organization is not important to the underlying decision. If members of your neighborhood chipped in and rented a billboard opposing a city councilman who supported zoning changes, it'd be no problem. If your group incorporated, it could end up being illegal under McCain-Feingold. The court said that making such a distinction has no constitutional basis and they rightly overruled it.

Xiahou

01-22-2010, 04:54

KukriKhan

01-22-2010, 05:22

So corporations, which may or may not include individual US citizens, enjoy the rights and benefits of US citizenship. They are a person.

But that person is not accountable to all US laws and sanctions. If Microsoft's CEO directs the murder of Apple's CEO, and the act is carried out by a MS employee... Given that MS is a person, entitled to freedom of speech, religion, association, press; freedom from unreasonable search and siezure, and retains the right against self-incrimination and the right to trial by a jury of (its?) peers...

should not all members of that corporation be arrested and held responsible for the murder? Every Board member, every employee, every stockholder?

Ridiculous, of course. Not every such "member" is responsible for the act.

Yet every member, by dint of having owned a share of stock or having been an employee - is accorded constitutional rights. Therefore, corporations are not merely "citizens", they are Super Citizens.

"First Among Equals".

We fought a revolution over this a few years back. Maybe we gotta again.

Bill Gates gives $2K? Fine. His opinion, his money. I give $2K? Fine too. My opinion, my money.

Microsoft or the Post Office, or John Deere Tractor Co gives $2K? Not OK in my book.

jabarto

01-22-2010, 05:36

Seeing as how McCain-Feingold didn't exist prior to 2002, I think democracy will survive. :yes:

You're off by about 30 years.

Actually, that's untrue. You have this fancy thing known as a "vote." Unless you sell it, you're alright.

Tell me more about your fantasy world where I have the same political influence as a multibillion dollar corporation. :2thumbsup:

I can see the arguments against giving corporations all rights of a person.

I don't see how you can ban non-profits from advertising against/for someone if they've received money from for-profit companies, though. Trying to keep money out of politics is a battle doomed to fail. Campaign finance reform, and all the regulations that go along with it, serve mainly to help the two main political parties and incumbents prevent challengers, since you need a lawyer(s) to run for government.

Either way, I am very happy with this ruling, because it did unconstitutionally infringe on the free speech rights of non-profit advocacy organizations, in a way to help incumbents.

And the award for hyperbole of the week...goes to you!:balloon2: :balloon2: :juggle2: :clown: :balloon2: :balloon2: Congrats!

CR

what you said is so out of touch with reality that I belive it borders on dissociation.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-22-2010, 05:49

Tell me more about your fantasy world where I have the same political influence as a multibillion dollar corporation. :2thumbsup:

They can't vote. Now, I don't believe that monetary donations should be able to come from corporations themselves either, but saying that it spells the end of democracy is ludicrous.

Unflattering reference to previous poster.

I don't know. He presented a fairly well thought-out argument in response to a post he disagreed with. You, by contrast, called him names. Evidently we have different definitions of maturity. :dizzy2:

jabarto

01-22-2010, 06:06

They can't vote. Now, I don't believe that monetary donations should be able to come from corporations themselves either, but saying that it spells the end of democracy is ludicrous.

I confess, that's more than I expected from you.:sweatdrop:

I don't know. He presented a fairly well thought-out argument in response to a post he disagreed with. You, by contrast, called him names. Evidently we have different definitions of maturity. :dizzy2:

Yes, because calling me hyperbolic without addressing anything I actually said, complete with an dizzying array of emoticons, is so classy. :juggle2:

But you're half right; I should probably elaborate. Nothing - and I mean nothing - good will ever happen in this country until campaign finance reform kicks in. reference to previous poster removed; what he said is so out of touch with reality that it borders on dissociation.

Lemur

01-22-2010, 06:34

You're off by about 30 years.
More like 100, going back to Tillman Act of 1907 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tillman_Act_of_1907). Talk about yer judicial activists stomping all over precedent, etcetera.

Also, jbarto, it's considered bad form to name-call in the BR, unless you are very, very drunk, or can be very, very funny about it. (To be clear: CR called your comment "hyperbolic," but you called him "unflattering reference to previous poster." So you win the Unsportsmanlike Conduct Lapel Pin and Silly Hat. Never fear, it passes to another winner quickly.)

Husar

01-22-2010, 14:08

Well, Kukri is almost right there, except that the workers aren't part of a company but are resource suppliers who make contracts with a company to sell their human resources/work to the company. The shareholders however, should all be jailed.

The problem with company donations as I see it is this:
One guy earns money and decides to spend it politically as he sees fit, this is fine.
Many, many guys earn money but a small group of managers/directors decide how to spend it politically, this is not okay.
As far as the company goes the managers are chosen representatives of sort, or at least one would hope so, but giving them political decision rights using the money the whole company earned seems rather wrong to me, there's a this division of power thing for a reason so why should company managers get power in economic and political aspects? They often already got more political power than they should have anyway.

Scienter

01-22-2010, 14:39

I need to read the decision before I comment more, but the idea of it makes me uncomfortable. One of the first things I thought of when I heard about the SCOTUS decision was TV commercials. A gigantic corporation (Monsanto and Wal Mart both come to mind) can afford to buy lots of tv air time to support the congresspeople they want to buy.

Seamus Fermanagh

01-22-2010, 14:52

I don't see how this will demolish democracy...

McCain-Feingold got the corporate money out of politics, contributions are now all from private citizens, as are political ads and the like :idea2: ....oh dear, that's not true is it?

The law was bad law and unconstitutional. It deserves to be struck down.

Now, Lemur's larger point -- is it PROPER to accord corporations virtually all of the rights we acknowledge as pertaining to the individual? -- is a much thornier concern.

Hyperbolic Example:

As a legal "person," can we deny Haliburton the right to keep and bear arms? Do they and should they have the right to maintain their own private defense force? It is my belief that the second ammendment precludes us from limiting the chosen armaments of any citizen. Should this be true for Exxon as well? Surely they do work in areas where a few surplus M60's or older 105mm Abrams would be useful?

Seamus Fermanagh

01-22-2010, 15:02

But you're half right; I should probably elaborate. Nothing - and I mean nothing - good will ever happen in this country until campaign finance reform kicks in. Hence my calling him childish; what he said is so out of touch with reality that it borders on dissociation.

In the absolute, you are correct. In practice, money has not, cannot, and will never be separated from representative politics. To enact laws that attempt to do so may be noble, but is ultimately naive.

I'd prefer absolute transparency. If my guy in the first congressional here in the Old Dominion is a wholly owned subsidiary of Northrup Grumman*, I want to KNOW that before I cast my ballot. I may actually consider that a PLUS in assessing his candidacy. Since money and politics cannot be separated, we should focus on making everyone aware of what's going on -- a difficult but not entirely insoluble problem.

* To the best of my knowledge, Rep. Wittman is a fairly standard right-of-center GOP type with no known horrific vices or foibles, I am merely using this as a hypothetical example.

Kralizec

01-22-2010, 15:20

Hyperbolic Example:

As a legal "person," can we deny Haliburton the right to keep and bear arms? Do they and should they have the right to maintain their own private defense force? It is my belief that the second ammendment precludes us from limiting the chosen armaments of any citizen. Should this be true for Exxon as well? Surely they do work in areas where a few surplus M60's or older 105mm Abrams would be useful?

Maybe Haliburton should be allowed to run for office? ~;)

Hosakawa Tito

01-22-2010, 16:22

In the absolute, you are correct. In practice, money has not, cannot, and will never be separated from representative politics. To enact laws that attempt to do so may be noble, but is ultimately naive.

I'd prefer absolute transparency. If my guy in the first congressional here in the Old Dominion is a wholly owned subsidiary of Northrup Grumman*, I want to KNOW that before I cast my ballot. I may actually consider that a PLUS in assessing his candidacy. Since money and politics cannot be separated, we should focus on making everyone aware of what's going on -- a difficult but not entirely insoluble problem.

* To the best of my knowledge, Rep. Wittman is a fairly standard right-of-center GOP type with no known horrific vices or foibles, I am merely using this as a hypothetical example.

Media corporations already heavily influence the electoral process, and have for years. Even with this change corporations and unions cannot give money directly to the campaigns of federal candidates or to political parties. Sponsors of political ads still must disclose who paid for them.

Along with absolute transparency I'd also like to see an effective publicly funded campaign system. At least then the tendency to legislate in favor of who is funding your campaign would be more focused on the general welfare and not specific interest groups.

drone

01-22-2010, 16:37

Maybe Haliburton should be allowed to run for office? ~;)

Or forced to stand for jury duty, or be eligible for selective service...

In the absolute, you are correct. In practice, money has not, cannot, and will never be separated from representative politics. To enact laws that attempt to do so may be noble, but is ultimately naive.Sad, but true. In my mind, the best way to limit campaign funding is to shorten the campaign. You can only blow through so much money in a couple of months, and an added bonus would be the elimination of electoral fatigue. Never going to happen, but I can dream...

Gregoshi

01-22-2010, 16:41

...or be eligible for selective service...
That would do wonders for the numbers of those in service. It would give new meaning to the phrase "A Division of Haliburton". :laugh4:

jabarto

01-22-2010, 20:14

Also, jbarto, it's considered bad form to name-call in the BR, unless you are very, very drunk, or can be very, very funny about it. (To be clear: CR called your comment "hyperbolic," but you called him "unflattering reference to previous poster." So you win the Unsportsmanlike Conduct Lapel Pin and Silly Hat. Never fear, it passes to another winner quickly.)

Sweet! Do I get to pick the color?

But yes, I suppose I can see the distinction there. I tender my apology to the offended parties and will take a break to cool off a bit. :sweatdrop:

CrossLOPER

01-22-2010, 20:39

Whacker

01-22-2010, 20:47

Well, all of the individuals in the corporation can speak individually, correct? It does seem a bit odd.

I'm in way late to this, but then again I try to stay away from the backroom for sanity's sake.

The answer to your question is yes and no.

Corporations are indeed collectives of citizens, and non-citizens. Witness the wonderful green card, and the H1-B visa.

As a private citizen, I can and do indeed speak out on my own behalf regarding issues confronting our nation.

As an employee of one of the world's biggest corporations, I do this at my own risk of employment. Business can and do often fire people based on their public image or reputation. You'd be surprised what the list of non-discrimination traits does NOT cover. Have pictures of you and your friends getting stupid at the bar on Facebook? Be prepared. People can and often are fired over this.

The issue I have with 'corporate personhood' is that they are controlled solely by the bigwigs at the top. My execs could decide that they all love the presidential candidate that I absolutely hate, and throw our company's weight and resources behind that person. I, as an employee, can opt either to be silent, or go along with the flow. If I stand up and say otherwise, I am subject to internal censure, and possible employment repercussions. If I am very active in supporting the other candidate, it again puts my job at risk, as there are dozens of piddly little nits that my employer could use as justification to fire me. I could possibly sue and possibly win, but if I don't it will often prove very costly for me. This is on top of the lost time and wages I get from being fired, as well as seniority, etc.

I say hell no to corporate personhood. Private citizens as individuals can and should be able to support whomever they choose within legal bounds as a matter of free speech. Throwing a business's weight behind something, esp. when employees may not agree with management's decision and are essentially powerless to do anything about it, is wrong exactly for those reasons. For the record, the "you are free to find other employment" argument is total bull and I'm utterly sick of hearing it. Finding and keeping a job in today's economy is not easy, even before everything tanked in late 09.

drone

01-22-2010, 22:39

Hosakawa Tito

01-22-2010, 22:49

Well, as far as corporate personhood is concerned, the opinions of the employees don't matter. The opinions of the shareholders do. Of course, the bigwigs most likely don't care what the little fish shareholders have to say either, but the difference is key. Complaints about corporate funding to politicians belong at the shareholders meeting, not the workplace.

Can't disagree with that. Unfortunately, if they weight the share-holder vote in the same fashion as other votable company issues then the exercise would be pointless.

HoreTore

01-22-2010, 23:05

Well, as far as corporate personhood is concerned, the opinions of the employees don't matter. The opinions of the shareholders do. Of course, the bigwigs most likely don't care what the little fish shareholders have to say either, but the difference is key. Complaints about corporate funding to politicians belong at the shareholders meeting, not the workplace.

Any and all complaints about every single aspect of the corporation belongs in the workplace. All the time.

drone

01-22-2010, 23:49

Any and all complaints about every single aspect of the corporation belongs in the workplace. All the time.

:rolleyes: What a corporation does with it's profits is not for the employees to decide. Those decisions are for the owners (shareholders).

Beskar

01-22-2010, 23:53

:rolleyes: What a corporation does with it's profits is not for the employees to decide. Those decisions are for the owners (shareholders).

Nope, it should be the employees.

Does your landlord tell you what to eat for dinner or what TV channel to watch? :rolleyes:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-22-2010, 23:57

Does your landlord tell you what to eat for dinner or what TV channel to watch? :rolleyes:

Are you paying your landlord or is he paying you? If the employees want to start a communal business, then so be it, that is their right under the free market. Good luck to them. Otherwise, no.

Beskar

01-23-2010, 00:04

Are you paying your landlord or is he paying you? If the employees want to start a communal business, then so be it, that is their right under the free market. Good luck to them. Otherwise, no.

All businesses should be communal.

drone

01-23-2010, 00:11

All businesses should be communal.

In an attempt to make this so, many corporations offer stock options/ownership as part of employee benefits. So many employees are also owners. But discussion of corporate profits (which are counted after salaries/benefits) belongs to a shareholder discussion, not an employee discussion.

Edit-> Here's one take I hadn't expected:
CEOs to Hill: Quit calling us for campaign cash (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012202311.html?hpid=topnews)

Dozens of current and former corporate executives have a message for Congress: Quit hitting us up for campaign cash.

Roughly 40 executives from companies including Playboy Enterprises, ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's, the Seagram's liquor company, toymaker Hasbro, Delta Airlines and Men's Wearhouse sent a letter to congressional leaders Friday urging them to approve public financing for House and Senate campaigns. They say they are tired of getting fundraising calls from lawmakers - and fear it will only get worse after Thursday's Supreme Court ruling.

HoreTore

01-23-2010, 10:38

:rolleyes: What a corporation does with it's profits is not for the employees to decide. Those decisions are for the owners (shareholders).

Who cares?

A manager with a brain doesn't care where a bright idea comes from, he only cares about how bright the idea is.

Skullheadhq

01-23-2010, 11:07

Who knows what's good for a company,, the people that work there or some shareholders who've never even seen the company?

CountArach

01-23-2010, 12:11

Actually, that's untrue. You have this fancy thing known as a "vote." Unless you sell it, you're alright.
Well that's blatantly ignoring the fact that money does play a huge role in shaping the political debate. For a campaign to create an image and a message is easy. Spreading that requires a great deal of money. This simply means that money is far easier to come by for those with a Corporatist stance. Whether or not Corporatism is good or bad isn't the issue. The issue, or at least this is the way that I see it, is whether or not we should be rewarding groups for taking certain positions on topics.

For the record, my own view is that elections should be entirely publicly funded with the added provision that each person may contribute to any political party they want. For-profit groups should be banned from contributing to parties. Not-For-Profit should be banned from contributing as well, but can run their own ads in support of some policy or another, without explicitly supporting a party.

To the best of my knowledge, Rep. Wittman is a fairly standard right-of-center GOP type with no known horrific vices or foibles, I am merely using this as a hypothetical example.
I got bored and looked up his finances (http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/can_give/H8VA01147). He seems quite clean... though he did take quite a bit of money from various banks, but I guess everyone does these days.

EDIT: Well as always the American people weigh in (http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/Public-Agrees-Court-Campaign-Money-Free-Speech.aspx?CSTS=alert):

Fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech, and 55% say corporate and union donations should be treated the same way under the law as donations from individuals are.
[...]
61% of Americans think the government should be able to limit the amount of money individuals can contribute to candidates and 76% think it should be able to limit the amount corporations or unions can give.
That's an interesting comparison. Obviously they are not mutual exclusive, but it just goes to show that most people are not taking an extreme view either way on this (ie - banning donations, or unlimited donations). I also find the fact that those not affiliated with either party are more likely to think money isn't speech very interesting and perhaps goes some way to showing a bit of disillusionment amongst people who try to avoid out-and-out partisanship.

Lemur

01-23-2010, 16:41

In my mind, the best way to limit campaign funding is to shorten the campaign. You can only blow through so much money in a couple of months, and an added bonus would be the elimination of electoral fatigue.
This is the most productive idea I've heard in ages. Short campaigns would be sweet.

A question for those who believe that corporations enjoy First Amendment protection; does this not also mean that they are protected by the Second Amendment? Does not Walmart then have the right to arm its employees as it sees fit on its own private property? If not why not?

Skullheadhq

01-23-2010, 17:12

This is the most productive idea I've heard in ages. Short campaigns would be sweet.

A question for those who believe that corporations enjoy First Amendment protection; does this not also mean that they are protected by the Second Amendment? Does not Walmart then have the right to arm its employees as it sees fit on its own private property? If not why not?

All shoplifters blown to peices by a shotgun wielding cashiers, whoohoo, but wouldn't that give a lot of mess in your shop?

Subotan

01-23-2010, 18:56

Get double barreled ones, and you'll be able to offer buy one shell get one free deals.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-23-2010, 19:11

Well that's blatantly ignoring the fact that money does play a huge role in shaping the political debate. For a campaign to create an image and a message is easy. Spreading that requires a great deal of money.

That is indeed true, but that is the fault of those who do not educate themselves, rather than the fault of the campaigners. It doesn't even require much work - just a quick look at Wikipedia to see who favours what, and a bit more trawling if that doesn't turn up what one is looking for. It doesn't take more than a half hour a day.

Still, I don't want corporate or union subsidies to be given directly to political parties.

HoreTore

01-23-2010, 19:12

Who knows what's good for a company,, the people that work there or some shareholders who've never even seen the company?

BINGO

Crazed Rabbit

01-23-2010, 19:14

All businesses should be communal.

Businesses, like property, should belong to those who paid for them. To take them is theft.

This is the most productive idea I've heard in ages. Short campaigns would be sweet.

A question for those who believe that corporations enjoy First Amendment protection; does this not also mean that they are protected by the Second Amendment? Does not Walmart then have the right to arm its employees as it sees fit on its own private property? If not why not?

Indeed short campaigns would be great - though hard to enforce, I suspect, without some form of unconstitutional censorship.

As for your second question, the state of Washington is ahead of you:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Though this shouldn't impact employees taking their own guns to work; something most companies frown on anyway.

For the record, my own view is that elections should be entirely publicly funded with the added provision that each person may contribute to any political party they want. For-profit groups should be banned from contributing to parties. Not-For-Profit should be banned from contributing as well, but can run their own ads in support of some policy or another, without explicitly supporting a party.

That was rightfully declared censorship and unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

Even without corporate personhood, I can't see how limiting what a company can advertise (beyond false advertising laws) is anything but censorship.

CR

HoreTore

01-23-2010, 19:19

Businesses, like property, should belong to those who paid for them. To take them is theft.

That would strongly depend on just how it was paid for.

Even without corporate personhood, I can't see how limiting what a company can advertise (beyond false advertising laws) is anything but censorship.

Just how is banning false advertising anything but censorship...? You're making censorship sound like a bad thing.

Crazed Rabbit

01-23-2010, 19:24

Who knows what's good for a company,, the people that work there or some shareholders who've never even seen the company?

Gee, who knows better on whether Kraft should takeover Cadbury's; some factory worker or Warren Buffet? :idea2:

That would strongly depend on just how it was paid for.

Not really.

CR

Lemur

01-23-2010, 19:27

As for your second question, the state of Washington is ahead of you:
Doesn't really address my question, but an interesting law, thanks for sharing. But it's a state law, which is unconstitutional if a corporation enjoys citizenship and protection under the Bill of Rights.

Crazed Rabbit

01-23-2010, 19:32

CrossLOPER

01-23-2010, 19:41

Well I agree with the state law; corporations shouldn't have the right to employ armed bodies of men. How would you stop that? Prohibiting them from owning weapons?
Allow them you use anything that does not fire a lethal projectile or have a piercing tip or cutting edge.

What do you do about gun-making companies though?
Mandate that ammunition and arms are to be manufactured in separate facilities.

Crazed Rabbit

01-23-2010, 20:37

It would probably be best simply to allow employees to have guns - like security guards - but the company can't order them around off of company property.

CR

Major Robert Dump

01-23-2010, 20:54

I don't like corporate influence in elections, but I also think it was a poorly written law. The 30/60/90 day thing proved in and of itself that it was a borderline law, or else there would have been an outright ban

CountArach

01-23-2010, 22:59

Well I agree with the state law; corporations shouldn't have the right to employ armed bodies of men. How would you stop that? Prohibiting them from owning weapons? What do you do about gun-making companies though?

CR
Just out of interest, where do you draw the line? Security guards? Mercenary companies (Think Blackwater)?

Crazed Rabbit

01-24-2010, 01:42

Hmm, I'll say there should be no right for corporations to form professional mercenary outfits, so the legislature could outlaw them if they wanted. Security guards, firearm companies, are fine.

CR

HoreTore

01-24-2010, 04:21

Not really.

Yes, really. And as someone whio supports the free market, I expect you to agree with me that those who paid for their business through corruption, military force or outright theft are not really deserving of ownership.l

Beskar

01-24-2010, 05:51

Yes, really. And as someone whio supports the free market, I expect you to agree with me that those who paid for their business through corruption, military force or outright theft are not really deserving of ownership.l

"free market" :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Free for who? The consumer or the corperations?

Being honest, a "fair market" would be a noble ideal, if any. Freedom for rampaging exploitment isn't.

Crazed Rabbit

01-24-2010, 07:39

Yes, really. And as someone whio supports the free market, I expect you to agree with me that those who paid for their business through corruption, military force or outright theft are not really deserving of ownership.l

If we were talking about banana republics or the like such considerations would be important. In the US they're negligible. I'm not going to put footnotes full of clarifications and details for every remark, especially one like "property belongs to those who pay for it".

CR

HoreTore

01-24-2010, 11:30

If we were talking about banana republics or the like such considerations would be important. In the US they're negligible. I'm not going to put footnotes full of clarifications and details for every remark, especially one like "property belongs to those who pay for it".

CR

It was mainly aimed at my next-door neighbor, Russia....

And while it doesn't happen in Europe or the US, it is certainly done by our companies...

Banquo's Ghost

01-24-2010, 14:02

By law corporations are U.S. Persons. Anyone can incorporate. If money is the primary determining factor in elections we would have had President Kerry.

Toyota is majority foreign-owned. Please explain why Toyota should have the same (actually superior) rights to free speech as a U.S. citizen.

I think that this is the most interesting facet of this decision - the reality that substantial power to influence American elections is given back to foreign interests. The Economist ponders on just these concerns here (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/01/senator_brought_you_gazprom).

As far as I can tell, the analysis doesn’t distinguish between domestic and foreign corporations. Not that it would matter much, since a foreign corporation can always establish a domestic subsidiary, or buy an American company: Cities Service, for example, is a unit of PDVSA, the Venezuelan state oil company. So the ruling allows Hugo Chavez to spend as much money as he wants to helping and harming American politicians...

There is no reason to believe that such foreign interests will be overly keen on transparency, either. Whilst there is a lot to be argued for the concept of transparency in elections, it's bordering on the idealistic. Since most corporations find it hard to be entirely transparent on their tax affairs, one might be forgiven in thinking that they will be less than forthcoming about their manoeuvring for power.

I find it hard to understand why anyone, least of all conservatives, think handing over electoral influence to external powers is a good thing. But then I've never understood the fawning over corporate interest either. To me, smaller government requires more power in the citizen's hands - and thus entities that overpower the citizen (and are almost always in favour of big government because it is easier to control than an empowered citizenry) are by definition antithetical to good conservative governance.

EDIT: Further information: Following Lemur's note about Thomas Jefferson it may be of interest to understand that corporations were quite frowned upon in the early days of the United States. It appears it was extrapolations from the judiciary that really started the rot on widening corporate "rights" and then the discovery by government that larger taxes were to be had. (Wikpedia citation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation)unfortunately)

In the United States, government chartering began to fall out of vogue in the mid-1800s. Corporate law at the time was focused on protection of the public interest, and not on the interests of corporate shareholders. Corporate charters were closely regulated by the states. Forming a corporation usually required an act of legislature. Investors generally had to be given an equal say in corporate governance, and corporations were required to comply with the purposes expressed in their charters. Many private firms in the 19th century avoided the corporate model for these reasons (Andrew Carnegie formed his steel operation as a limited partnership, and John D. Rockefeller set up Standard Oil as a trust). Eventually, state governments began to realize the greater corporate registration revenues available by providing more permissive corporate laws. New Jersey was the first state to adopt an "enabling" corporate law, with the goal of attracting more business to the state.[11] Delaware followed, and soon became known as the most corporation-friendly state in the country after New Jersey raised taxes on the corporations, driving them out. New Jersey reduced these taxes after this mistake was realized, but by then it was too late; even today, most major public corporations are set up under Delaware law.

Skullheadhq

01-24-2010, 14:24

So the man who can bind the most companies to him, will win the elections berlusconi-style because of the enormous amount of cash he can spend on publicity?

So the one who is most servile to the corporations will become president (or senator)?
And alas, the masses will not vote on who's right or wrong, but because he has a nice face and comes on TV often.

Lemur

01-24-2010, 17:03

Banquo, wow, whoah Nelly, geez, zounds, gadzooks. You take away a fella's responsibility to police and read every thread in the Backroom, and suddenly he's got time to research thoroughly and write in-depth essays.

Will need to digest all of the fascinating info you just uncovered. Thank you for bringing something new and interesting to this thread!

Beskar

01-24-2010, 17:35

I agree, Lemur. It was a good read. :yes:

Glad we haven't lost him.

Husar

01-24-2010, 18:29

whoah Nelly

I've got that, too, but yeah, Banquo has made great posts before IMO, this one was interesting to read as well. :2thumbsup:

So I guess the point about more foreign influence due to this still stands, of course more money doesn't directly translate into votes but there has to be a reason the candidates advertise themselves that much.

Gregoshi

01-24-2010, 18:38

I don't think money makes that much difference if one candidate is a nutter, but in a normal, battle-between-lesser-evils election, money will have a much stronger influence...except for the likes of us free thinkers here at the Org. :2thumbsup:

Edit: Oh, and on the whole corporate personhood thingy, I can see some merit in the arguments from the side that says this ruling is okay, but my gut tells my this is wrong regardless. The only consulation is in the distrubingly humourous (cynical?) thought that the corporations will be tossing away lots of money on politicians who are unable to get anything done anyway, so it really doesn't matter in the end. :shrug:

Vuk

01-24-2010, 18:46

Now who said that Vuk was a partisan? :P Here is one issue where I strongly agree with Obama. (and gosh dang it, but I think it is the first!~;))

Crazed Rabbit

01-25-2010, 21:34

The New York Times investigates ... and finds evidence of corporate election influencing meager at best. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/weekinreview/24kirkpatrick.html)

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted in his opinion that no evidence was marshaled in 100,000 pages of legal briefs to show that unrestricted campaign money ever bought a lawmaker’s vote. And even after Congress further tightened the rules with the landmark McCain-Feingold law in 2002, banning hundreds of millions of dollars in unlimited contributions to the political parties, public trust in government fell to new lows, according to polls.

And what about the corporations that contributed so much of that money? A review of the biggest corporate donors found that their stock prices were unaffected after they stopped giving to the parties. The results suggest that those companies did not lose their influence and may have been giving “because they were shaken down by politicians,” said Nathaniel Persily, a professor at Columbia Law School who has studied the law’s impact.

“There is no evidence that stricter campaign finance rules reduce corruption or raise positive assessments of government,” said Kenneth Mayer, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “It seems like such an obvious relationship but it has proven impossible to prove.”

And another view on corporate personhood (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/22/if-you-prick-a-corporation-does-it-not-bleed/):

Well, no, because as my liberal friends all seem to be indignantly announcing in the aftermath of the Citizens United ruling, corporations aren’t really people! They’re creatures of statute, and “corporate personhood” is just a convenient legal fiction. Which is fair enough, but also seems to miss the point rather spectacularly. As a practical matter, it is hard to imagine any constitutional liberty that could not be reduced to a hollow joke if we refused to count as an infringement any regulation that nominally targeted only the corporate mechanism for coordinating its exercise.

Having dispensed with the repellent doctrine of corporate personhood, we can happily declare that journalists enjoy full freedom of the press … as long as they don’t plan on using the resources of the New York Times Company or Random House or Comcast, which as mere legal fictions can be barred from using their property to circulate unpatriotic ideas. You’re free to practice your religion without interference — but if it’s an unpopular one, well, let’s hope you don’t expect to send your kids to a religious school or build a church or something, because those tend to involve incorporating. A woman’s right to choose is sacrosanct, but since clinics and hospitals are mere corporations with no such protection, she’d better hope she knows a doctor who makes house calls. Fill in your own scenarios, it’s easy.

CR

Lemur

01-25-2010, 21:49

The NYT piece is reassuring. But the Cato/Sanchez piece ...

And another view on corporate personhood (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/22/if-you-prick-a-corporation-does-it-not-bleed/):
... is a bit of a roll in the rhetorical hay. Sanchez seems to be arguing (it's hard to tell, his prose is so purple) that as a practical matter we must accept corporate personhood. He then goes into a very strange hypothetical exercise in which journalists cannot use the resources of their newspapers because they are corporations, ignoring the very explicit "freedom of the press shall not be abridged" part of the Constitution.

He then waxes poetic about how nobody wants to give citizenship rights to Exxon or Nike, but we must, as a matter of practicality.

I'd respond to his argument if he were making one, rather than meditating from a lofty height on the foolishness of mortals. As it is, I'm just amazed he got paid to write this junk. Seems like the sort of Note to Peasants one would expect from the Thirteenth Duke of Goustenharborshireborough.

Crazed Rabbit

01-26-2010, 19:39

I don't agree with that, Lemur. The fact that the McCain-Feingold law exempted media companies shows just how stupid it was. Why can you allow GE, through NBC, to air views, while banning somebody like Boeing?

Another article, (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens_united/index.html) from a guy who may not like the results but agrees with the constitutional reasoning:

Thus, those who want to object to the Court's ruling need to do so on First Amendment grounds. Except to the extent that some constitutional rights give way to so-called "compelling state interests," that the Court's decision will produce "bad results" is not really an argument.

More specifically, it's often the case that banning certain kinds of speech would produce good outcomes, and conversely, allowing certain kinds of speech produces bad outcomes (that's true for, say, White Supremacist or neo-Nazi speech, or speech advocating violence against civilians). The First Amendment is not and never has been outcome-dependent; the Government is barred from restricting speech -- especially political speech -- no matter the good results that would result from the restrictions. That's the price we pay for having the liberty of free speech. And even on a utilitarian level, the long-term dangers of allowing the Government to restrict political speech invariably outweigh whatever benefits accrue from such restrictions.
...
But the speech restrictions struck down by Citizens United do not only apply to Exxon and Halliburton; they also apply to non-profit advocacy corporations, such as, say, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, as well as labor unions, which are genuinely burdened in their ability to express their views by these laws. I tend to take a more absolutist view of the First Amendment than many people, but laws which prohibit organized groups of people -- which is what corporations are -- from expressing political views goes right to the heart of free speech guarantees no matter how the First Amendment is understood. Does anyone doubt that the facts that gave rise to this case -- namely, the government's banning the release of a critical film about Hillary Clinton by Citizens United -- is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to avoid? And does anyone doubt that the First Amendment bars the government from restricting the speech of organizations composed of like-minded citizens who band together in corporate form to work for a particular cause?
...
As for the question of whether corporations possess "personhood," that's an interesting issue and, as I said, I'm very sympathetic to the argument that they do not, but the majority's ruling here did not really turn on that question. That's because the First Amendment does not only vest rights in "persons." It says nothing about "persons." It simply bans Congress from making any laws abridging freedom of speech.

And everyone's favorite expensive escort patron (Spitzer):

As an elected official who often tangled with wealthy corporations, I recognize that there is a superficial appeal in the prospect of being able to silence their political voices. Of course that is precisely why the First Amendment protects them and why I find myself sympathetic to the First Amendment absolutists in this case. What distinguishes what Citizens United did and what Bill O'Reilly on Fox News -- Rachel Maddow on MSNBC -- does every day? Fox and MSNBC are corporations bombarding the airwaves with political rhetoric, from the right and left, that is as close to "electioneering communications" as anything I can imagine. The McCain-Feingold statute excluded "media companies" from its limitations, a distinction that makes no logical sense. The constitutionality of Citizens United's speech should have nothing to do with what else may or may not go on at the corporation it is part of.

And finally, on the money and free speech (http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens_united/permalink/401008b8c64d99e8730e94ad54399f4f.html) issue:

As Justice Stevens said in 2000, "money isn't speech. It is property." I find it hard to argue differently.

I don't find these even plausible, let alone persuasive. Anyone who believes that would have to say that there's no First Amendment problem with any law that restricts the spending of money for political purposes, such as:

"It shall be illegal for anyone to spend money to criticize laws enacted by the Congress; all citizens shall still be free to express their views on such laws, provided no money is spent;" or

"It shall be illegal for anyone to spend money advocating Constitutional rights for accused terrorists; all citizens shall still be free to express their views on such matters, provided no money is spent"; or

"It shall be illegal for anyone to spend money promoting a candidate not registered with either the Democratic or Republican Party; all citizens shall still be free to advocate for such candidates, provided no money is spent."

Anyone who actually believes that "money is not speech" would have to believe that such laws are necessarily permitted by the First Amendment (since they merely restrict the expenditure of money, which is not speech).

Do you actually believe that? I don't even find that argument sufficiently coherent to warrant much discussion.

It would be like saying: "No person shall be permitted to use a megaphone or television outlet to advocate liberal views -- there's no First Amendment problem: megaphones and television outlets are just 'property, not speech'."

This is a very good court decision and a victory for free speech in America.

CR

jabarto

01-27-2010, 00:15

This is a very good court decision and a victory for free speech in America.

CR

How can you say this with a straight face? This is the most pro-business legislation in the history of human governance; it benefits no one except for the corporations - more specifically, the people heading them.

I also find it rather amusing that you're hailing this as a constitutional victory when it's the polar opposite of that; corporations now have literal carte blanche to subvert the democratic process as much as they damn well please. They can fill every public office with whomever will be loyal to them and their interests.

Seriously, stop with the legality argument and just think about the ramifications of this decision for a moment.

Crazed Rabbit

01-27-2010, 00:22

The rule of law and our constitution prohibits the government from denying rights to people or groups just because it would be for the "common good".

Whatever you say about corporate advertising for politicians, this is a constitutional victory. No longer can the government impose criminal sanctions on advocacy groups like the Sierra Club for publishing a book about national forests and telling readers to vote against a candidate.

As for the ramifications; I've already posted studies showing the doom-saying is way overblown.

But even if it wasn't; it's called free speech. Deal with it.

CR

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-27-2010, 00:26

There is absolutely no reason that a corporation, non-profit, or union should be allowed to give money directly to political parties. There is also absolutely no reason that a corporation, non-profit, or union shouldn't be able to make independent statements stating their own political views.

Kralizec

01-27-2010, 00:32

Crazed Rabbit, I understand what you're saying, but aren't you bothered about commercial companies donating money to certain candidates merely because said candidate is expected to go easy on those companies in the fiscal/economic sense?

Yes, a commercial corporation is basically a group of shareholders who've congregated. In order to earn money. Now I suppose technically that said corporation could earn more money by investing in a certain politician. But if I buy shares in a company, that doesn't mean I'm okay with said company using the money to support a politician I might dispise because that indirectly produces more dividend. That makes the whole "congregation of citizens" argument kind of moot :juggle2:

a completely inoffensive name

01-27-2010, 01:22

The rule of law and our constitution prohibits the government from denying rights to people or groups just because it would be for the "common good".

That is completely wrong, and you have no idea what you are talking about. For someone who talks about the Constitution you have little understanding of it.

People have their rights denied everyday to protect the common good, the purpose of the government is to protect its people from outside and within from each other. Freedom without check is anarchy. You cannot run into a movie theater and scream fire because that puts people into danger, even though your first amendment right is the ability to say what you want when you want to.

Stop pretending this is a win for free speech and the Constitution and just come out that you would want to live under a corporations rule then a governments rule. I'm not saying that's a bad thing you believe that, I just want you to stop lying to everyone.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-27-2010, 01:38

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted in his opinion that no evidence was marshaled in 100,000 pages of legal briefs to show that unrestricted campaign money ever bought a lawmaker’s vote. And even after Congress further tightened the rules with the landmark McCain-Feingold law in 2002, banning hundreds of millions of dollars in unlimited contributions to the political parties, public trust in government fell to new lows, according to polls.

And what about the corporations that contributed so much of that money? A review of the biggest corporate donors found that their stock prices were unaffected after they stopped giving to the parties. The results suggest that those companies did not lose their influence and may have been giving “because they were shaken down by politicians,” said Nathaniel Persily, a professor at Columbia Law School who has studied the law’s impact.

“There is no evidence that stricter campaign finance rules reduce corruption or raise positive assessments of government,” said Kenneth Mayer, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “It seems like such an obvious relationship but it has proven impossible to prove.”

I admit I didn't read the whole article. But this seems a bit shaky. It says:

1) They found no evidence of votes being bought. Not of amendments not being proposed, bills being written a certain way, bills not being voted on in the first place, etc.
2) Public trust fell in government fell to new lows during the bush administration. Ahahaha.
3) You can't prove it using evidence from the stock market.
4) There is no evidence of people doing corrupt things.

Oh well, in many ways I agree. The unions will donate big money to the democrats even if they don't do jack for them, same with corporations. The fact that the McCain-Feingold bill passed in the first place is proof that democracy won't be demolished.

Crazed Rabbit

01-27-2010, 01:58

That is completely wrong, and you have no idea what you are talking about. For someone who talks about the Constitution you have little understanding of it.

People have their rights denied everyday to protect the common good, the purpose of the government is to protect its people from outside and within from each other. Freedom without check is anarchy. You cannot run into a movie theater and scream fire because that puts people into danger, even though your first amendment right is the ability to say what you want when you want to.

Stop pretending this is a win for free speech and the Constitution and just come out that you would want to live under a corporations rule then a governments rule. I'm not saying that's a bad thing you believe that, I just want you to stop lying to everyone.

Second time in as many days that I get trolled. What's up with that?

Crazed Rabbit, I understand what you're saying, but aren't you bothered about commercial companies donating money to certain candidates merely because said candidate is expected to go easy on those companies in the fiscal/economic sense?

I am certainly bothered by the possibility of corporations buying influence. But that sort of rent seeking already happens, and I think it's easier to stop that sort of thing by reducing regulations and not adding new ones unless they are necessary, since that's often how politicians give favors to certain businesses. Increased transparency would also help.

CR

Seamus Fermanagh

01-27-2010, 06:19

I disagree that it was a "good" decision. I do think it was the correct decision. This is a classic supreme court "veto" of a poorly framed legislative effort. Please note, I said poorly "framed," not poorly intended. I think most of us would agree that corporate "persons" may have undue influence. The means of curbing or channeling that influence, however, must meet the mandates of the Constitution.

CrossLOPER

01-27-2010, 17:08

Lemur

01-28-2010, 03:14

File under "Well That Didn't Take Long": Saudis reported to begin lobbying immediately (http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/coa_20100127_3449.php) through corporate organs. So not only do we have a Kenyan muslin for president, we'll have a congress lubricated with Saudi oil money. Lovely.

Congressional Democrats, led by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), are drafting legislation to curb the influence of foreign corporations and foreign governments following the decision. [...] lobbyists representing foreign corporations are already organizing to defeat such a proposal. The Organization for International Investment, a trade group representing foreign banks, oil companies, and other foreign corporations operating in the United States, “lashed out” at Van Hollen’s proposals. “The concern over foreign influence in our political system is a red herring,” said Nancy McLernon, the head of OII. [...]

Saudi Arabian-owned subsidiaries operating in the United States can now spend unlimited amounts advocating the defeat of candidates who support clean energy legislation.

Well, I guess as long as your politics line up with the Kingdom's that all well and good.

Strike For The South

01-28-2010, 03:23

Oh wow the politicians are screwing us over and lining up with big buisness.

I'm shocked, horrified, and appalled.

The fact some of you still feign outrage at this stuff is truly remarkable, in 4 years here I've gone from starry eyed idealist to cynic

CrossLOPER

01-28-2010, 04:31

Saudis reported to begin lobbying immediately (http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/coa_20100127_3449.php)
That is incredibly unfortunate and somewhat bitterly ironic.

Strike, I stopped being surprised around 2005.

ICantSpellDawg

01-28-2010, 04:45

CrossLOPER

01-28-2010, 04:52

We have a right to assemble and a right to free speech. Corporations have united interests that are profoundly affected by the consequences of politics. Change laws to ensure corporate interests are the interest of the corporate body rather than shadowy and opaque deals and keep an eye on the seeds planted here, making sure the weeds don't strangle the fruits.
This could also lead to more corruption with sizable amounts of "funding" finding more lubricated paths as a result of this policy of openness. If corporations want to dump their cash, that's just great! Just make sure the effect is as limited as possible.

Aemilius Paulus

01-28-2010, 05:53

Remember, it's not money, it's free speech.

And at risk of committing a Godwin: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." — Benito Mussolini
While this post of Lemur may have been the fourth one in a thread with already four pages, I do feel obliged to point out that Mr. Mussolini never said that. A wildly popular quotation it is in political forms, but that alone does not guarantee its validity. For that matter, most Stalin quotes are fake as well.

Xiahou

02-05-2010, 01:38

Three reasons not to sweat the Citizens United ruling (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUdFaIYzNwU).
A short video from Reason.tv. I think it puts a little perspective on the ruling. :yes:

CountArach

02-05-2010, 10:54

The Onion, as always is spot on (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_allows):

Supreme Court Allows Corporations To Run For Political Office
WASHINGTON—In a landmark decision that overturned decades of legal precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday to remove all restrictions that had previously barred corporations from holding public office. "This is an unfair, ill-advised, and tragic mistake," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said before boarding a flight to Arizona in response to primary poll numbers that show him trailing the Phoenix-based company PetSmart by a double-digit margin. "Despite the deep discounts and exciting promotions that they may be able to offer, these huge, soulless entities are not capable of truly serving the American people's—or their pet's—needs." Corporate attack ads have already begun to hit the airwaves in New York, where a new Pepsi commercial set to a catchy modern remix of Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'" blasts incumbent governor David Paterson as "unrefreshing" and urges New Yorkers to "taste the choice of a new generation this Nov. 2."

Major Robert Dump

02-08-2010, 19:24

Oh look, e can talk the talk but, in the end, they take the money too:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/democrats-rake-record-donations-corporations/story?id=9777742

As I said before, either ban all of it or none of it. Banning corporate money 60 days from the election is retarded. Pls don't tell Sarah I said that!

a completely inoffensive name

02-09-2010, 02:19

Subotan

02-09-2010, 10:13

It's buying votes, the American way :yes:

drone

03-13-2010, 05:38

Murray Hill runs for the Maryland 8th District seat as a Republican. Murray Hill Inc. (http://murrayhillincforcongress.com/) that is.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031204127.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

Murray Hill might be the perfect candidate for this political moment: young, bold, media-savvy, a Washington outsider eager to reshape the way things are done in the nation's capital. And if these are cynical times, well, then, it's safe to say Murray Hill is by far the most cynical.

That's because this little upstart is, in fact, a start-up. Murray Hill is actually Murray Hill Inc., a small, five-year-old Silver Spring public relations company that is seeking office to prove a point (and perhaps get a little attention).

After the Supreme Court declared that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to funding political campaigns, the self-described progressive firm took what it considers the next logical step: declaring for office.

"Until now, corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence-peddling to achieve their goals in Washington," the candidate, who was unavailable for an interview, said in a statement. "But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves."

William Klein, a "hired gun" who has been enlisted as Murray Hill's campaign manager, said the firm appears to be the first "corporate person" to run for office and is promising a spirited campaign that "puts people second, or even third."
They might have trouble with the constitutional age requirement, since the company is a fairly new startup, they probably should have bought up an older dormant corporation. I'm not usually a fan of Maryland politics, but this is made of pure win.

a completely inoffensive name

03-13-2010, 06:12

Good. Its about time, we need to reverse this bigotry against corporations that have been holding them back from success to get out of poverty for the past 100 years and get them equal representation in the government as human beings.

Xiahou

03-13-2010, 06:55

After the Supreme Court declared that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to funding political campaigns,No. the Supreme Court did no such thing. Fail. :no:

a completely inoffensive name

03-13-2010, 08:40

No. the Supreme Court did no such thing. Fail. :no:

Please enlighten me on your right wing spin of the ruling.

Crazed Rabbit

03-13-2010, 09:40

The SCOTUS noted that the first amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The important bits for this case:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress did make a law abridging the freedom of speech - specifically banning certain speech near an election. Therefore it got struck down.

But I guess 'progressives' don't like free speech, seeing the stunts like this they pull to mislead people.

CR

HoreTore

03-13-2010, 10:10

But I guess 'progressives' don't like free speech, seeing the stunts like this they pull to mislead people.

Don't you take that attitude, CR, last time I checked my leftist attitude towards freedom of speech was a lot more fanatical than yours...

Subotan

03-13-2010, 10:47

Money != Speech

a completely inoffensive name

03-13-2010, 18:47

Xiahou

03-13-2010, 22:21

Please enlighten me on your right wing spin of the ruling.Gee, let's see. The ruling did nothing about the prohibition on corporate donations to political campaigns. So, therefore, corporations do not have the same rights as individuals when it comes to funding campaigns. I, as an individual, can directly fund a politician's campaign. A corporation cannot. The Post's story is factually false- it's really that simple.

I think it's kinda sad that a reputable paper can't even get the basic facts straight before it runs with a story like that....

Crazed Rabbit

03-14-2010, 00:30

Again, CR and the right on here doesn't recognize the legal precedent of restricting rights given in the constitution for the safety and well being for the public. He seems to think he is still allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater when there isnt one and have no responsibility for the 82 year old trampled to death because it was his right to free speech.

A precedent without basis in the constitution.

Laws against shouting fire in crowded theaters are there because of the threat of physical harm arising from such an action. Tell me, what physical harm would Hillary Clinton: The Movie, have done to anyone?

Don't you take that attitude, CR, last time I checked my leftist attitude towards freedom of speech was a lot more fanatical than yours...

Was it now? Fanatical you may be, but more fanatical than me? I think not.

Also, I was speaking about American 'progressives', like the people mentioned in the story.

Money != Speech

You wouldn't complain if news corporations were forbidden from endorsing candidates then?

CR

a completely inoffensive name

03-14-2010, 01:37

A precedent without basis in the constitution.

Laws against shouting fire in crowded theaters are there because of the threat of physical harm arising from such an action. Tell me, what physical harm would Hillary Clinton: The Movie, have done to anyone?

You fail at recognizing reality. The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution says and the Constitution was left purposely vague for a reason. The creators behind the Constitution did not think the document would be around for a long time and did not see it as a static document with a set of definitive instructions.

Laws against shouting fire in crowded theaters are allowed because the purpose of the free speech clause of the first amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court was not to provide a legal loophole for people to incite violence and danger with their language, but to protect the ability of the public to criticism and complain. As such, the free speech clause of the first amendment was not created with the idea that a company should be able to spend as much money as they want on the candidate that will suit them best. Just as shouting fire in a crowded theater poses a threat to the public, so does rampant unchecked money contributions from powerful companies. Therefor, the ability of private contributions toward candidates should be eliminated completely from both companies and actual American citizens (following the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment) and a set amount of public funding should be handed out to all candidates with no more to be spent.

You wouldn't complain if news corporations were forbidden from endorsing candidates then?CR
I wouldn't complain. The purpose of a news corporation is to provide news. I don't see how Fox News telling me to vote for Palin counts as news. If individuals on the news channels being interviewed talk about who they support, then that is their right.