Yeah for Corporate Personhood!

[CrossLOPER]

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...

I like this idea.

[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).

[Beskar]

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?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

[CountArach]

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. 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:

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]

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]

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]

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

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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

Not really.

CR

[Lemur]

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]

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

[CrossLOPER]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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"

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.