Yeah for Corporate Personhood!

[Lemur]

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]

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]

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.

[Beskar]

Victory for the Ferengi!

[Whacker]

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]

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.

[Hosakawa Tito]

[QUOTE=drone;2419831]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.[/QUOTE]

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]

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]

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

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

[Lemur]

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*
• 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, 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.

[drone]

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.